# Talking Hackintosh?



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I noticed that a recent thread where the original poster was asking questions about running OS X on a Dell mini 9 was closed by ehMax.

Does this closing mean that any discussion of this subject is now forbidden on ehMac or was it the fact that the original poster on that thread was looking for advice? Or was it that some people on that thread were getting kind of flamey about it?

Just wondering. 

For the record, I don't own a hackintosh and doubt if I have the patience to figure out how to do it. I'm interested because I have a friend who while he scrupulously pays for all his software because being a programmer he believes developers should be paid for their work, he also has recently built his own hackintosh and has violated Apple's EULA on his purchased copy of Leopard. He built it not to save a few bucks, but because of certain technical limitations of using Apple hardware to run his BSD based network, or at least that's how my non-techie brain understands it. He also owns a big chunk of Apple stock too.

Incidentally, I just saw this today: Woz autographs a hackintosh netbook - Boing Boing Gadgets











> I showed him my Dell Mini 9 with OS X Leopard installed on it (and an Apple sticker sloppily applied over the Dell logo. [Wozniak] said, "Oh my god, that is so COOL!"


Not that this constitutes an argument for anything, but it's interesting that someone who still apparently quite fervently supports what Apple does, doesn't hate the idea of a hackintosh, and is actually impressed.

Not meaning to be provocative here. If ehMax feels this thread needs to be closed too, that is his prerogative and I'll refrain from discussing it further.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

It looks nice


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I applaud people who try to make ugly Dell equipment look less hideous. But I can't condone breaking Apple's EULA.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

We have to take the blogger at their word that this actually occurred, without confirmation from Woz we have no way of knowing if this actually happened, until then I remain skeptical.

However, if this is genuine, it speaks more of Woz than anything else. He is an extremely affable fellow and was in a public situation. What would one have him do, say "Excuse me a moment", pull out his iPhone and call Apple's lawyers? If this event actually occurred I hardly find it to be a validation of Hackintoshes and breaking Apple's EULA on the part of Woz, that is a stretch. He was just being Woz, friendly and polite.

Personally I think to discuss Hackintoshes in an abstract, general way should not contravene any rules on ehMac, but to discuss the means by which one would go about creating a Hackintosh should, as that is tacit promotion of breaking the EULA, which I believe to be inappropriate for ehMac, especially now that it is associated with Macworld Canada.

If people wish to discuss and promote means by which Hackinoshes are created and the EULA broken, there are plenty of other sites and forums out there on the underbelly of the web to find such information.

EhMax has made it clear numerous times that ehMac is a "family" site and wishes to keep it clean and aboveboard, discussions involving the how-tos of creating a Hackintosh would sully that and could be the beginning of the first slide on a very slippery slope.


----------



## Chas3 (Jul 14, 2007)

Funny, I posted in the "Anything Mac" forum on looking to aqquire a quadra 700 so I could build a computer inside it, and my intentions were clearly to run a hackintosh in that machine, yet my thread was not closed.

-Chase


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Yes this does happen because it went unnoticed by the Mayor.


----------



## Chas3 (Jul 14, 2007)

Why wouldn't we be able to talk about hackintoshing anyway? I have many macs (business and home use), have purchased over 150 iPods, and buy all of apples software. If I want to run mac os x on an acer aspire one because apple does not have this product in their line I realize it is illegal to some extent, but not in order to be able to get arrested. I dont understand why this forum would be so close minded to this concept, and it disappoints me because this is my most used forum. (dont talk to me about pr0x and such)

-Chase


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Chas3 said:


> Why wouldn't we be able to talk about hackintoshing anyway?... I realize *it is illegal* to some extent...
> -Chase


There is your answer.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Not that this constitutes an argument for anything, but it's interesting that someone who still apparently quite fervently supports what Apple does, doesn't hate the idea of a hackintosh, and is actually impressed.
> 
> Not meaning to be provocative here. If ehMax feels this thread needs to be closed too, that is his prerogative and I'll refrain from discussing it further.


I dont really see how the Woz implied anything about his feelings regarding the subject of the hackintosh. Besides, he may think that apple should license their OS anyways, so it doesn't constitute much.

But ya the deleting of the thread was kind of wierd. I had this happen to me and I recieved no explanation even when emailing ehmax.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think people should talk about heir hackintosh projects, but not talk about installing the software on it and actually using the hackintosh.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

chas3 said:


> why wouldn't we be able to talk about hackintoshing anyway? I have many macs (business and home use), have purchased over 150 ipods, and buy all of apples software. If i want to run mac os x on an acer aspire one because apple does not have this product in their line i realize it is illegal to some extent, but not in order to be able to get arrested. I dont understand why this forum would be so close minded to this concept, and it disappoints me because this is my most used forum. (dont talk to me about pr0x and such)
> 
> -chase


+1


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

It's not illegal. Breaking a license agreement and breaking the law are not the same thing. 

There is no rational reason not to allow discussion of a topic that is very relevant to the Mac community, both for those for and against the practice. Hackintosh talk most definitely should be allowed as long as people are using a legally purchased copy of OS X.

The guys at Macworld have done several hackintosh stories (including going through the process of building at least two of them), so obviously this is not a taboo topic with them.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Look there is contract law. Contracts are legally binding documents, you may not go to jail for breaking them but you are LEGALLY bound to them. You don't go to jail for going over the speed limit either but you have broken the law.

You don't purchase the OS you purchase a license to use it under certain restrictions, one of those restrictions being that it will be installed on an a computer made by Apple. If you don't like that restriction, then don't buy the license. Simple.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I'd like to know the policy on ehMac concerning Hacktinshosh's. After my MBP dies in say 4-5 years, I would seriously consider a netbook hacked with Mac OS ? on it. 

Macs looks great, but we are really getting ripped off on the hardware.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> I'd like to know the policy on ehMac concerning Hacktinshosh's. After my MBP dies in say 4-5 years, I would seriously consider a netbook hacked with Mac OS ? on it.
> 
> Macs looks great, but we are really getting ripped off on the hardware.


No you aren't getting ripped of on the hardware. Hardware sales subsidize the development of the software. If it wasn't for Hardware sales do you really think that a license for the most sophisticated OS in the world could be sold for a paltry $129? You have to look at the big picture and Apple's complete business model. If you don't like it buy a PC.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> Look there is contract law. Contracts are legally binding documents, you may not go to jail for breaking them but you are LEGALLY bound to them. You don't go to jail for going over the speed limit either but you have broken the law.
> 
> You don't purchase the OS you purchase a license to use it under certain restrictions, one of those restrictions being that it will be installed on an a computer made by Apple. If you don't like that restriction, then don't buy the license. Simple.


It's not that simple. People can and do legally break license agreements. Courts have even judged EULAs as being unenforceable in the past.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

screature said:


> You don't purchase the OS you purchase a license to use it under certain restrictions, one of those restrictions being that it will be installed on an a computer made by Apple. If you don't like that restriction, then don't buy the license. Simple.


If some members can't understand the plain english in screature's post, then I think _any_ hacintosh discussion should be banned. XX)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> It's not that simple. People can and do legally break license agreements. Courts have even judged EULAs as being unenforceable in the past.


Ah yes but you have to go to court to determine that, they aren't Legally breaking them at the time, it is only determined to be legal after the fact because of a court challenge. With Apple in court with Pystar over Apple's EULA we shall soon enough see if the EULA stands up in court, until then when you buy the license and install it you are agreeing to the terms and conditions of the EULA or consciously defying them.

Let's take your supporting the notion of being able to contravene the EULA to a projected conclusion. Pystar wins their case and Apple has to remove the provision that the OS can only be installed on Apple made hardware. Where is this likely to lead?

Apple will have to put into place R&D to support the OS being run on virtually any combination of hardware out there i.e. development costs rise substantially and the OS becomes significantly more expensive to buy a license. Now that anybody can install it on any machine Apple will resort to the same kind of Activation protocols that Windows use and we all hate.

Apple will in order to compete in an open marketplace for the hardware that their OS can be installed on will have to drop the prices on their hardware and the build quality will inevitably suffer.

Now that the OS has to deal with all the possible permutations of the hardware, processors, chipsets, etc. that it will have to interact with it will become less stable and more like Windows in that regard. There are definite advantages to developing an OS for a closed system business model.

Now OSX becomes more ubiquitous and thus a much greater target for all the ills and evils that afflicate Windows users; viruses, trojans, worms etc.

Apple and OSX will be relegated to being just another Microsoft, producing mediocre products for mediocre systems, all because you and those who think like you think you should be able to install an OS that you bought a license for (that you don't own) anywhere you damn well please to save a few bucks. 

Sorry that is a scenario that I am willing to pay a premium for to avoid.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

Bjornbro said:


> If some members can't understand the plain english in screature's post, then I think _any_ hacintosh discussion should be banned. XX)


It might not be a matter of _understanding_ the plain english, but more a matter of _agreeing_ it.

When thoughts and discussion about the current state of the world get squashed in the name of "family values", we become a community I want no part of.

Step-by-step tutorials on how to break a software license, however, belong on a different board.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

screature said:


> Sorry that is a scenario that I am willing to pay a premium for to avoid.


Haha, that's quite the scenario!

Or, Apple could just say that they will not officially support any other hardware than Apple's own. People are on their own for compatibility, support, etc. if they choose to install on a beige box, but they are no longer breaking contract law to do so.

Apple sees revenue increase from all the extra licenses being purchased by the PC crowd, fattening their profits, allowing for more R&D investment and even hotter hardware to attract the PC-Mac user that loves the OS, but hates the dated box sitting behind their desk.

Just a thought.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Suite Edit said:


> Or, Apple could just say that they will not officially support any other hardware than Apple's own. People are on their own for compatibility, support, etc. if they choose to install on a beige box, but they are no longer breaking contract law to do so.
> 
> Apple sees revenue increase from all the extra licenses being purchased by the PC crowd, fattening their profits, allowing for more R&D investment and even hotter hardware to attract the PC-Mac user that loves the OS, but hates the dated box sitting behind their desk.
> 
> Just a thought.


And why would *large numbers* of people want to buy a license for an OS that once they have installed it they would have no support for? Where is the incentive in that? I think the pressure that would be brought to bear on Apple to provide support would result in exactly the scenario I outlined.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

screature said:


> And why would large numbers of people want to buy a license for an OS that once they have installed it they would have no support for? Where is the incentive in that? I think the pressure that would be brought to bear on Apple to provide support would result in exactly the scenario I outlined.


Because they're doing it already.

Mom & Pop wouldn't, but that's why there's Apple hardware if you want full compatibility & support.

Apple already does this with their server software. If you buy XXX configuration, we'll fully support you, but if you swap brand A FibreRAID for brand B FibreRAID we won't. People still buy it because they know what they're getting into.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Suite Edit said:


> It might not be a matter of _understanding_ the plain english, but more a matter of _agreeing_ it.
> 
> When thoughts and discussion about the current state of the world get squashed in the name of "family values", we become a community I want no part of.
> 
> Step-by-step tutorials on how to break a software license, however, belong on a different board.


Well then you are basically agreeing with what I said. As I said I think general discussions about Hackintoshes in the abstract should not be banned, however threads that wish to discuss the means by which the EULA can be contravened should be.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Suite Edit said:


> Because they're doing it already.
> 
> Mom & Pop wouldn't, but that's why there's Apple hardware if you want full compatibility & support.
> 
> Apple already does this with their server software. If you buy XXX configuration, we'll fully support you, but if you swap brand A FibreRAID for brand B FibreRAID we won't. People still buy it because they know what they're getting into.


Yes but this does not a business model make. There are very, very few people who have the time or expertise to build a hackintosh. It is about multiples and the number of people doing so and in the mean time you have let the genie out of the bottle.

Apple's server software constitutes a small fraction of their revenues. Even less so for it being purchased to run on unsupported configurations. They know it will not adversely affect their bottom line and that is why they allow it.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature,

I get it that you disagree with the idea of hackintosh. That fine, and it's a legitimate position that should be allowed to be discussed. Right along side those who disagree with your position who see nothing wrong with hackintosh and want to know more about it.

The EULA court cases involving a single user that I've seen were when the user took the big company to court and won. The very validity of the contract implied by the EULA is highly debatable. That it even constitutes a contract at all is a matter of opinion, since the EULA is inside the box, and you don't get the chance to agree or not until after you've already paid for it. That claim alone has been enough to get a EULA thrown out.

Once you've paid for the product without any contract, you can't tack a contract on after the fact, and tell the user that they can't use the product they already paid for if they don't agree retroactively. That's extortion.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

Suite Edit said:


> Apple sees revenue increase from all the extra licenses being purchased by the PC crowd...


 :lmao: Now that is the most LMFAO post I've seen on ehMac to date! Why? It's the thought that PC users would actually _buy_ the Mac OS as opposed to their _usual_ methods. 

Am I generalizing? I don't think so, if modders disagree with the EULA then what _else_ don't they agree with.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> screature,
> 
> I get it that you disagree with the idea of hackintosh. That fine, and it's a legitimate position that should be allowed to be discussed. Right along side those who disagree with your position who see nothing wrong with hackintosh and want to know more about it.


As I have already said twice now, I have no problem with generalized discussions such as this that talk about hackintoshes in the abstract. What I have a problem with is a thread that discusses the nuts and bolts of how to go about creating a hackintosh and ultimately contravening the EULA



bsenka said:


> The EULA court cases involving a single user that I've seen were when the user took the big company to court and won. The very validity of the contract implied by the EULA is highly debatable. That it even constitutes a contract at all is a matter of opinion, since the EULA is inside the box, and you don't get the chance to agree or not until after you've already paid for it. That claim alone has been enough to get a EULA thrown out.


This took me all of ten seconds to find: Mac OS X (Leopard) Software License (PDF) on the Apple site. The EULA is readily available to be read in full by anyone prior to purchase. Additionally if you purchase the license and after having read the EULA don't agree with it simply return it for a refund. If this is a sticking point then what I would concede is that the EULA should be made available at the point of sale for all to read prior to purchase, a small fix that would completely negate the argument being made.



bsenka said:


> Once you've paid for the product without any contract, you can't tack a contract on after the fact, and tell the user that they can't use the product they already paid for if they don't agree retroactively. That's extortion.


Hardly extortion.

extortion |ikˈstôr sh ən|
noun
the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

screature said:


> Well then you are basically agreeing with what I said. As I said I think general discussions about Hackintoshes in the abstract should not be banned, however threads that wish to discuss the means by which the EULA can be contravened should be.


Yup, I haven't disagreed with that line of thought yet. I had quoted Bjornbro in my reply because their post seemed to imply that if people don't agree with you, there shouldn't be a thread.

In fact, I strongly agree with _most_ of what you're saying.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

screature said:


> Yes but this does not a business model make. There are very, very few people who have the time or expertise to build a hackintosh. It is about multiples and the number of people doing so and in the mean time you have let the genie out of the bottle.


I'm not saying that they WANT to make this business model. Apple's sitting pretty right now, and I see no logical reason for them to change things. I was simply following your conjecture that Apple looses a EULA court battle with that Hackintosh maker.

I think that they would be more savvy about HOW they go about opening the EULA, and would walk down the road MS & Windows has.



screature said:


> Apple's server software constitutes a small fraction of their revenues. Even less so for it being purchased to run on unsupported configurations. They know it will not adversely affect their bottom line and that is why they allow it.


I think you've missed my point. Apple already has a policy of "Here's our software. Here's what we recommend you run it on (3rd party, not Apple hardware). If you pick another 3rd party solution, we just won't officially support it." Pros still buy the Mac OS, Apple server software, Apple hardware and perhaps a different RAID, but they know the consequences.

It's not a huge stretch to say "You can buy our software, but unless you install it on Apple hardware, we won't support your system." They already do it!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Well then you are basically agreeing with what I said. As I said I think general discussions about Hackintoshes in the abstract should not be banned, however threads that wish to discuss the means by which the EULA can be contravened should be.


This is the main question I asked in my initial post - where's the line on Hackintosh discussion? Although I don't agree with your opinion on violating the EULA, I agree with your definition of where the line should be. It is prudent for ehMax to not stray into any area that might involve potential legal risk, such as to be seen to be promoting practices that might be technically illegal.

Now I'll guess we might want to hear from the Mayor his ol' self on this so we are not just speculating.

The pressure on Apple from hackintoshes exists because there is a market there that Apple is not serving. I don't believe Apple or Apple defenders can wish that away and I believe this pressure will continue to grow. The whole Dell mini 9 thing is big because it's now become much easier to do a hackintosh that apparently works quite flawlessly and I think there are some very smart people who are going to make this even easier in the future. I'm certain Apple is fully aware of this and probably have a strategic roadmap in place for how they plan to deal with it going forward.

Dealing with it by hoping that the hackintoshers will just stop is not a smart strategy in my opinion and is doomed to failure, because they won't. People are going to try and get what they want and I don't think the technical illegality or not of a EULA you have to click on is going to stop anyone.

I believe that it is limited hardware choice that drives this, not so much saving a couple hundred bucks. Apple could offer more models in more market segments which I think would blunt a lot of this. For instance, If the predicted Apple netbook fantasies are true, I think some form of a netbook with some real innovative features that no other netbook has such as multitouch, would take most of this Dell mini 9 business away. My iPod Touch is great but it can't perform the function that a netbook could.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Suite Edit said:


> I'm not saying that they WANT to make this business model. Apple's sitting pretty right now, and I see no logical reason for them to change things. I was simply following your conjecture that Apple looses a EULA court battle with that Hackintosh maker.
> 
> I think that they would be more savvy about HOW they go about opening the EULA, and would walk down the road MS & Windows has.
> 
> ...


Yes I understand that when it comes to their server (enterprise) software and hardware. But again it is a matter of the multiples involved. They can afford to this with their server line because it constitutes a small fraction of their revenues (units sold). The same is not true of their consumer line of products and that is why the EULA is what it is for those products.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

Bjornbro said:


> :lmao: Now that is the most LMFAO post I've seen on ehMac to date! Why? It's the thought that PC users would actually _buy_ the Mac OS as opposed to their _usual_ methods.
> 
> Am I generalizing? I don't think so, if modders disagree with the EULA then what _else_ don't they agree with.


I'm glad that I brought some humor to your day.

Do PC users buy Windows right now?

I think that if someone has made a moral decision to pirate software, they'll do it anyways. I'm not talking about pirates here. They ALREADY pirate the Mac OS if they want to.

I'm talking about someone who is tech-savvy enough to make a hackintosh (me or you), who either can't afford Apple's hardware or can't find an Apple hardware solution for their needs. This person DOESN'T agree with pirating, and has problems with the EULA because it means they can't currently run the MacOS.

People who pirate software are theives, and they'll find a way to leech, EULA or no EULA.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is the main question I asked in my initial post - where's the line on Hackintosh discussion? Although I don't agree with your opinion on violating the EULA, I agree with your definition of where the line should be. It is prudent for ehMax to not stray into any area that might involve potential legal risk, such as to be seen to be promoting practices that might be technically illegal.
> 
> Now I'll guess we might want to hear from the Mayor his ol' self on this so we are not just speculating.
> 
> ...


I generally agree with the the points you are making GA, especially the portion where you say, "I believe that it is limited hardware choice that drives this, not so much saving a couple hundred bucks. Apple could offer more models in more market segments which I think would blunt a lot of this..."

However, I cannot agree with those who try to rationalize the breaking of the EULA by saying that Apple isn't offering me the hardware I want to run OSX on right now so I am justified in contravening the EULA. 

That is simply spoiled, self indulgent, behavior. Cool your friggin jets and have the patience to wait for Apple to offer the product you are desiring. Apple doesn't owe it to them to release a product to satiate their impatient desires on their timeline. If and when Apple releases a Netbook (midTower etc.) it will be on their terms when they deem the product to be ready and it lives up to the standards they have set for themselves as a corporate entity. Their reputation for excellence and innovation is at stake.


----------



## Chas3 (Jul 14, 2007)

screature said:


> There is your answer.


Notice that I said to "to some extent". I am not going to be arrested for doing this, either am I going to get "banned from apple" or something silly like that as it does not exist.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Chas3 said:


> Notice that I said to "to some extent". I am not going to be arrested for doing this, either am I going to get "banned from apple" or something silly like that as it does not exist.


It is the reason why ehMax shouldn't/doesn't allow for discussions/thread that pertain to the means of going about constructing a Hackintosh and ultimately breaking the EULA. He has much bigger fish to fry and considerations to be made than to allow for discussions that pertain to to illegal activity/perceived illegal activity.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

I just have to laugh at the strict "black or white" views of some people (one person in particular) on here. 

Make sure you only cross the street at an intersection, and only when you have the right of way. Make sure you always come to a complete stop and count to two at every stop sign. Oh, and if the product you want doesn't exist, you really shouldn't want it. Just wait for someone else to make it, because they know what you REALLY need and they should dictate what you have access to. Innovation? Creativity? Resourcefulness? Leave that to others.



I guess I just prefer to live my life in shades of grey.

A7


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

a7mc said:


> I just have to laugh at the strict "black or white" views of some people (one person in particular) on here.
> 
> Make sure you only cross the street at an intersection, and only when you have the right of way. Make sure you always come to a complete stop and count to two at every stop sign. Oh, and if the product you want doesn't exist, you really shouldn't want it. Just wait for someone else to make it, because they know what you REALLY need and they should dictate what you have access to. Innovation? Creativity? Resourcefulness? Leave that to others.
> 
> ...


They are lots of shades of grey undoubtedly. We all make choices as to how strictly we choose to adhere to any law or regulation. The ones that we choose to adhere to strictly tend to be those that do not infringe upon our personal freedoms in any significant way or that we simply as a matter of principle agree with.

When those laws/rules/regulations come into conflict with our own moral/ethical code or desires and aspirations we may then choose to deviate from them for a multitude of reasons. This is human nature.

That you or any one else may see Apple's EULA as an imposition of your rights and freedoms is indeed your business and you are free to act accordingly, albeit with the recognition that you may have to accept any possible consequences for doing so.

However, when you enter into the public realm as ehMac is, the ramifications extend beyond yourself to the greater community and to those who created the forum in the first place. 

As I previously mentioned ehMax has bigger fish to fry than merely allowing for a free and open dialogue on whatever issues users of the forum may wish to discuss. He must look at the bigger picture and be cognizant of where his bread is buttered. It does not serve him and his relationship with Apple and Macworld Canada well to allow for threads that discuss the mechanics for creating Hackintoshes and breaking Apple's EULA. This would clearly not be in his or Apple or Macworlds best interests.

It is also not within the best interests of a "family" site to be seen as promoting questionable ethical behavior, i.e does he want ehMac to be seen as a place where kids can go to find out how to break a legally binding contract and the inherent ethical lessons that are learned by doing so.

In your and other "hackers" desires to do whatever you want because you think you should have the right you are not taking into consideration the ramifications for ehMax and other users of the forum who wish for ehMac to remain a site that has a particular set of moral and ethical values. You are merely thinking of yourselves. Again that is fine if you are doing it in private or on a site that shares your view as a EULA as being an ethical "grey" area. 

Clearly the Mayor has made the decision that it is not a grey area and I personally am in agreement with his decision. That you are not does not give you justification for conducting personal attacks against those who disagree with your principles, especially when they are highly questionable to begin with.


----------



## Chas3 (Jul 14, 2007)

I am not here to attack at all.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

Bjornbro said:


> It's the thought that PC users would actually _buy_ the Mac OS as opposed to their _usual_ methods.


Wow - what exactly are you trying to imply by that statement? Almost pangs of an elitist attitude. Almost makes one NOT want to be a Mac user/owner after all.


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

Its not really elitist. I can speak from experience that basically everybody I know with a PC didn't pay for anything if they could avoid it, including the OS, all software they are using, and so on.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

Mr.Tickles said:


> I can speak from experience that basically everybody I know with a PC didn't pay for anything if they could avoid it, including the OS, all software they are using, and so on.


Exactly! Whenever the Mac/PC debate surfaces, I'll mention iLife, iWork, et cetera and the rebuttal is, "well I can just download that".


----------



## MacUser2525 (Mar 20, 2007)

screature said:


> It is also not within the best interests of a "family" site to be seen as promoting questionable ethical behavior, i.e does he want ehMac to be seen as a place where kids can go to find out how to break a legally binding contract and the inherent ethical lessons that are learned by doing so.


Apple gladly took my money for the family pack I have without one word asking what I was going to do with it or me having had a chance to look at let alone sign anything, you know like a real contract and those are the only ones legally binding on anyone there is a reason they get you to read then sign them things.



> In your and other "hackers" desires to do whatever you want because you think you should have the right you are not taking into consideration the ramifications for ehMax and other users of the forum who wish for ehMac to remain a site that has a particular set of moral and ethical values. You are merely thinking of yourselves. Again that is fine if you are doing it in private or on a site that shares your view as a EULA as being an ethical "grey" area.


If anyone has the grey area it is Apple what most seem to ignore willfully is the fact that Apple did not write all of the software contained and installed by default in OSX. Along with the parts of BSD they have GPL code on that disk in fact OSX will not boot without the GPL code. Now there is strange little clause in the GPL that states that I as an end user have the right to run that code as I please whereas the distributor (Apple in this case) of the code has the obligation to place no further restrictions on said code than was there to start with and saying you can restrict the machines the code runs on is certainly a further restriction on my legal rights to run that code that was not there before they distributed it.


> Clearly the Mayor has made the decision that it is not a grey area and I personally am in agreement with his decision. That you are not does not give you justification for conducting personal attacks against those who disagree with your principles, especially when they are highly questionable to begin with.


Most definitely his site he can do whatever he wants and if your last part is not the pot calling the kettle black...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacUser2525 said:


> ...Most definitely his site he can do whatever he wants and if your last part is not the pot calling the kettle black...


No not at all, never pointed to anyone specifically only spoke in general terms such as "hackers", "those who contravene the EULA", etc. If you fall into those generalizations and choose to take it personally, that is your business. As for the rest of your post...:yawn:


----------



## MacUser2525 (Mar 20, 2007)

screature said:


> No not at all, never pointed to anyone specifically until provoked to do so. As for the rest of your post...:yawn:


Ah I see the no officer I did not hit my wife she forced me to do it defense.. And the last is just typical of a good percentage of Mac users willfully ignore any facts that don't agree with your view of things.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacUser2525 said:


> Ah I see the no officer I did not hit my wife she forced me to do it defense.. And the last is just typical of a good percentage of Mac users willfully ignore any facts that don't agree with your view of things.


Your analogy is truly lame, to use a polite term. Merely stating that if attacked personally I am not immune to the human tendency to defend oneself. Show me where I attacked anyone personally in this thread and I will recant. 

No not willfully ignoring anything, other than your comments that do not have any relevance to the discussion at hand.


----------



## MacUser2525 (Mar 20, 2007)

screature said:


> Your analogy is truly lame, to use a polite term. Merely stating that if attacked personally I am not immune to the human tendency to defend oneself. Show me where I attacked anyone personally in this thread and I will recant.


I'll go with this part right here directed at a7mc "That you are not does not give you justification for conducting personal attacks against those who disagree with your principles, especially when they are highly questionable to begin with." where you attack his principles because they don't agree with yours thus doing the same thing you accuse him of.


> No not willfully ignoring anything, other than your comments that do not have any relevance to the discussion at hand.


I would say that whether you know what your talking about is certainly relevant to the question, hell you don't even know what a proper contract is let alone the rest of the junk you were spewing back there so it is not surprising you don't care to try and defend it .. Anyways my mama always told don't get in an argument with a fool he only brings you down to his level then beats you with experience so I'm done wasting my time on you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacUser2525 said:


> I'll go with this part right here directed at a7mc "That you are not does not give you justification for conducting personal attacks against those who disagree with your principles, especially when they are highly questionable to begin with." where you attack his principles because they don't agree with yours thus doing the same thing you accuse him of.


Uhhm, if you follow the thread you will see who started making things personal. And yes I do think wilfully breaking the EULA is of questionable principles, hell if it wasn't this thread wouldn't exist.  What's so hard to understand about that?




MacUser2525 said:


> I would say that whether you know what your talking about is certainly relevant to the question, hell you don't even know what a proper contract is let alone the rest of the junk you were spewing back there so it is not surprising you don't care to try and defend it


Look you can take Apple to court for all I care. Your BSD and GPL code arguments mean nothing unless they were challenged in court and a ruling made against Apple, until that day the EULA is legally binding, your "rebel yell", doesn't change anything.



MacUser2525 said:


> .. Anyways my mama always told don't get in an argument with a fool he only brings you down to his level then beats you with experience so I'm done wasting my time on you.


Who you callin' a fool...fool? tptptptp
:-( And we were just getting to know each other. :-(


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

Mr.Tickles said:


> Its not really elitist. I can speak from experience that basically everybody I know with a PC didn't pay for anything if they could avoid it, including the OS, all software they are using, and so on.


And I know quite a few Mac users who do the same thing - It's not a PC/Windows only behaviour. That's the elitist part. You imply that Mac users would never stoop to such levels. That's just plain and utter BS.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

screature said:


> Uhhm, if you follow the thread you will see who started making things personal. And yes I do think wilfully breaking the EULA is of questionable principles, hell if it wasn't this thread wouldn't exist.  What's so hard to understand about that?


I didn't realize saying someone has a "strict black or white view" was making things personal. You're a sensitive little fella aren't you? :baby:

Macuser2525: I've learned a while back to just ignore screature. He has a beef with me and resorts to petty tactics. No biggie... sticks and stones etc...

This EULA argument is a moot point. I believe the EULA is unfairly strict so I am doing what I think is the right choice given my options. I am prepared to defend that view in any way necessary. My conscience is clean. 

We all make our own decisions and live by our own moral code. Does anyone here smoke (or have ever smoked before)? I find that to be morally reprehensible, and far more questionable in principles than a stupid EULA. How can you live with yourself knowing you poison yourself and others? 

Different strokes for different folks. Anyone who can't understand that truly is being a smug elitist. 

A7


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

a7mc said:


> I didn't realize saying someone has a "strict black or white view" was making things personal. You're a sensitive little fella aren't you? :baby:


Uhhmm, no you were the one to point me out specifically in this thread (that is what made it personal), you are clearly the one who has the beef and can't let things go so stick that in your pipe and smoke it. I made my amends with you along time ago, you are the one to keep the fires burning.



a7mc said:


> Macuser2525: I've learned a while back to just ignore screature. He has a beef with me and resorts to petty tactics. No biggie... sticks and stones etc...


Too bad you couldn't have resisted this time...

Back when the speed test came up a while back and you posted the speed of your hackintosh, you seemed to think my comments were directed at you because you were the one who posted them, don't flatter yourself. Quite the contrary, had I known it was you I would have pressed the *ignore* button. 

You changed your avatar and it was only when you made your snivelling comments about how I am supposed to have it in for you (boohoo :-( :baby that I even knew it was you!! 

I suggest for the peace and well being of ehMac we just ignore each other's posts going forward as I am quite sure no one is interested in this kind of squabbling. I would have sent you a PM regarding this and not made it public, but you have made it known to me in the past that you don't appreciate PMs and would rather air you dirty laundry in public.



a7mc said:


> This EULA argument is a moot point. I believe the EULA is unfairly strict so I am doing what I think is the right choice given my options. I am prepared to defend that view in any way necessary. My conscience is clean.
> 
> We all make our own decisions and live by our own moral code. Does anyone here smoke (or have ever smoked before)? I find that to be morally reprehensible, and far more questionable in principles than a stupid EULA. How can you live with yourself knowing you poison yourself and others?
> 
> Different strokes for different folks. Anyone who can't understand that truly is being a smug elitist.


Clearly the EULA isn't a moot point for the Mayor or for Apple. So just who is being smug?  Elitism has nothing to do with it, it has to do with recognising that there are other considerations other than oneself when it comes to a public forum and the point that I have made countless times and you keep ignoring. 

The Mayor doesn't want ehMac to become a site where people who want to learn how to hack hardware and crack or pirate software come to peddle there "warez". It doesn't bode well for him with his relationship with Macworld Canada and Apple and he wants it to be a place where parents need not be concerned that there kids are learning questionable ethical lessons. 

As I have said, this makes it four times now, talking about hackintoshes in a general abstract way, no problem with that. Talking about how do it, the nuts and bolts, which result in contravening the EULA, they mayor has already ruled; it is out of bounds.


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

*belated reply to ehMac forum*

Hi all, I didn't log onto the site over the weekend so I missed this thread, but here is the reply I had typed up for my original post (when I went to post it, the thread had been locked).

_"I'm glad to see not everyone here thinks I'm the devil for wanting to try this. If one had a quick glance at my tagline you'd see there's not much Apple hardware I don't own, and I'm an Apple stockholder as well so unlike some of you haters I actually have a vested interest in whether or not Apple makes money.

I'm doing this for several reasons: 

1. I have some use for an XP system on the road, mostly for astronomy software that is Windows only, and the thought of not being able to access OS X on any of my computers makes me want to hurl - this is the environment I choose to work on mainly - the XP is supplemental, and my G4 iBook won't do it.

2. Apple does not offer a netbook. It's pretty asinine to cry foul when Apple doesn't even offer what I need. 

3. I'm curious to find out if it can be done. In the mid-90's I was putting Slackware linux on older PC's for the same reason. Because I can.

And about that EULA, a company can put almost anything in there, but that doesn't necessarily make it enforcable. Several years ago Blizzard use to send back to their database a directory tree of the entire contents of all users hard drives...when this was discovered they said "well it's in the EULA" and when challenged, the public said "no way".

If what I'm doing is so illegal, one of you internet lawyers explain to me the continued existence of Pystar (Psystar's Online Store - Open Computing Solutions featuring Mac OS X Leopard, Windows and Linux)

I'll tell you why Apple has never challenged Pystar...because they know if they lost then there would be precedent opening the door to anyone doing this, and they know there's a good chance they'd lose.

I'm doing this, and I'll post my results here or on the mydellmini site if this thread gets deleted."


_


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

For the record, I did not once comment on The Mayor's decision to ban discussion of Hackintoshes. It's his playground, he can do what he pleases, and I accept that.

My comments (that were somehow interpreted as an attack) were strictly aimed at the discussion from the "moral police" who seem to think that building/using a hackintosh is morally wrong. That was the extent of my comments.

Just wanted to be clear.

A7


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

rbrumble said:


> If what I'm doing is so illegal, one of you internet lawyers explain to me the continued existence of Pystar (Psystar's Online Store - Open Computing Solutions featuring Mac OS X Leopard, Windows and Linux)
> 
> I'll tell you why Apple has never challenged Pystar...because they know if they lost then there would be precedent opening the door to anyone doing this, and they know there's a good chance they'd lose.


Psystar is currently in legal proceedings to do with being sued by Apple - how is this not challenging Psystar?


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

So where's the cease and desist order stopping their business operations? If what they were doing was clearly illegal, they could be shut down immediately without a court case. You don't have to take a meth lab to court to get it to shut down.

Since they are still in operation, there must be a dispute as to whether what they are doing is actually illegal. This is what the courts need to decide.

Correct?


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

Its kind of a conundrum isn't it? If apple says OK, users of OSX might spike but they would lose hardware sales.

OSX wouldn't be as much of a loss leader if it had 2x the users though. 

Whoever said "Oh noes, it's made in china!", not everything made in china is crap. Granted most of it is, but some brands are pretty good. Too bad Seagate shipped apple a bunch of bad MacBook HDDs a couple years ago.

What I am quickly learning is that I wish Apple had a better aftermarket parts selection (currently, it just doesn't). If I want a mobo for a MacBook, it costs me $200 less retail than the entire unit, which is pretty steep.


----------



## Hanif (Mar 8, 2009)

Almost went the hackintosh route but I enjoy my macbook pro unibody so much why would I?


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

All this back and forth.. it's really annoying to read, so I apologize if my next comment has already been addressed, but....

I think the difference here on this forum is, we can discuss hackintoshes, who's done what with what machine, etc.. but not actually post instructions (or ask for them) on how to actually install OS X on a PC.

Correct?

As far as I know, it's not breaking any laws talking about it. I realize ehMax doesn't want people instructing others how to go about building a hackintosh (there are already plenty of other websites for that anyway, use Google), however it's probably ok to talk about the subject itself.


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

My original question was how to run XP in a virtual machine using VMWare Fusion from an SD card - something that could be done on either a true mac or a hackintosh - people kinda got their panties in a knot because I mentioned I wanted to try this on a Dell.

I actually got the advice I needed from a VMWare tech.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kloan said:


> All this back and forth.. it's really annoying to read, so I apologize if my next comment has already been addressed, but....
> 
> I think the difference here on this forum is, we can discuss hackintoshes, who's done what with what machine, etc.. but not actually post instructions (or ask for them) on how to actually install OS X on a PC.
> 
> ...


That's it exactly as far as I understand it.


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

I have to ask screature, are you speaking from a position of authority here or are you just riding the Mayor's jock?

Are you a forum moderator?


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

rbrumble said:


> I have to ask screature, are you speaking from a position of authority here or are you just riding the Mayor's jock?
> 
> Are you a forum moderator?


ROTFLMAO - Nice one


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rbrumble said:


> I have to ask screature, are you speaking from a position of authority here or are you just riding the Mayor's jock?
> 
> Are you a forum moderator?



"...are you just riding the Mayor's jock? Haven't heard that one before, not quite sure what it means but if it means anything close to what it sounds like tptptptp to you sir.

"No I am not a moderator but I am capable of reading the Mayor's posts regarding the matter, are you not?


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

screature said:


> "...are you just riding the Mayor's jock? Haven't heard that one before, not quite sure what it means but if it means anything close to what it sounds like tptptptp to you sir.
> 
> "No I am not a moderator but I am capable of reading the Mayor's posts regarding the matter, are you not?



That's what I figured....you're the five year old hiding behind Mommy's skirt "I told you so"-ing everyone.

Carry on then, lol.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Yeah right and you're the rebel without a cause/clue... get a life.


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

Don't you have a jock to ride?

(I'm not above ad hominum for humours sake, lol)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Good one, your got me!! When reasonable argumentation and debate fail the feeble minded resort to such behaviour, hey but if it makes you feel good about yourself go for it.

I don't agree with the Mayor's opinion because he is the one who holds, I agree with it because I believe it to be correct. In fact I held it before before he made any such ruling, he validated my opinion by shutting down your thread so why don't you ride my jock to put it in terms you seem to understand. beejacon


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

lol!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> No I am not a moderator but I am capable of reading the Mayor's posts regarding the matter, are you not?


I'm not challenging you on this, as I can see it's a deeply held position for you, but in my original post I was asking where the line was. You have in a couple of posts in this thread recited where you think the line is, which makes sense to me. You are indicating that the Mayor has said as much himself. I guess I didn't see the threads were ehMax specifically stated what you are stating. Can you link to those posts for those who might not have seen them?

I was hoping ehMax would respond to this thread, but if he's already said it elsewhere then I guess it's not necessary.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Can you link to those posts for those who might not have seen them?
> 
> I was hoping ehMax would respond to this thread, but if he's already said it elsewhere then I guess it's not necessary.


Perhaps he's afraid of getting dragged into the cat fight 

Here's the latest mention: http://www.ehmac.ca/anything-mac/75230-dell-mini-9-os-x-xp-3.html#post804119

The actual forum rules are in the Info Centre, and mentions:
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use ehMac to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative any law."

Despite our dislike of it, the Apple EULA is contract law.

And no, I'm not a mod/admin/mayor/nanny/etc. I just read the rules.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm not challenging you on this, as I can see it's a deeply held position for you, but in my original post I was asking where the line was. You have in a couple of posts in this thread recited where you think the line is, which makes sense to me. You are indicating that the Mayor has said as much himself. I guess I didn't see the threads were ehMax specifically stated what you are stating. Can you link to those posts for those who might not have seen them?
> 
> I was hoping ehMax would respond to this thread, but if he's already said it elsewhere then I guess it's not necessary.


He said in a thread (the one Suite Edit linked to) that he closed that ehMac respects the EULA and then closed the thread accordingly, other threads that have talked about Hackintoshes in the abstract have gone unclosed and as Suite Edit says, the rules are there for anyone to read. I don't know if he has specifically referred to the notion of talking generally about Hackintoshes as being tolerable. It seems anecdotally to be the case however and would not seem to break any of the posted rules of the Forum. So admittedly the reference that I was referring to by the Mayor was regarding the respecting of EULA's. As for where the line is to be drawn, I think that by virtue of the fact that thread has now gone on for some 70 posts, it is safe to assume that talking about Hackintoshes is OK, just don't talk about how to do it. But then maybe that is a false assumption on my part.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Suite Edit said:


> Despite our dislike of it, the Apple EULA is contract law.


That is a highly debatable point. The growing sentiment, and the frequent judgement of many courts, is that EULAs do NOT constitute a contract due to the nature of how they are applied. The contract is already complete when the sale is made. The EULA is applied after the contract was already agreed to and completed. That very fact could actually make EULAs ILLEGAL. Some judges have said essentially that. Besides that, there is a world of difference between breaking a contract and breaking the law.

Some EULAs are impossible anyway. Apple's Safari for Windows shipped with a EULA stating that it can only be installed on Apple branded computers too. Clearly they had no intention of enforcing that, right? 

What if I decided to put a EULA style contract inside the lid of mailbox? It could say something along the lines of "by depositing correspondance in this mailbox (or contracting out for deposit), the sender acknowledges that the recipient is the rightful owner of the senders' entire property including all corporate, financial, real estate and equipment assets."


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

This is at least part of my point, some items in EULA's are not enforceable (see my previous post regarding Blizzard's mistake).

Imagine if a gas company sold gas but had a EULA saying what kind of car it could go in. Sounds absurd, and that's not a bad analogy of what Apple is trying to force people to do.

If this is such a black-and-white issue, why are Pystar's doors still open?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

rbrumble said:


> If this is such a black-and-white issue, why are Pystar's doors still open?


Not only that, but why do their lawyers think they have enough of a case to push the issue instead of settling? Obviously, THEY do not believe the EULA is an enforceable contract. Not to mention they pretty much need their clients to win in order to get paid, so they must believe they have valid case.

I firmly believe that it's important for consumer rights that Psystar wins. Not because I support Psystar, but because it's important that people have the right of ownership of things that they buy. This notion that we only license software is ridiculous. It's a consumer product that we buy a physical copy in a store with no other contract required to be signed prior to paying. We OWN it.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

bsenka said:


> Not only that, but why do their lawyers think they have enough of a case to push the issue instead of settling? Obviously, THEY do not believe the EULA is an enforceable contract. *Not to mention they pretty much need their clients to win in order to get paid*, so they must believe they have valid case.


It's called gambling. If they win, they'll win huge! If they don't, they're just out some man hours.



bsenka said:


> This notion that we only license software is ridiculous. *It's a consumer product that we buy a physical copy in a store* with no other contract required to be signed prior to paying. We OWN it.


Except for when software is downloaded and you just punch in a _license_ code. 

Don't make me break out my common sense hammer.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

bsenka said:


> What if I decided to put a EULA style contract inside the lid of mailbox? It could say something along the lines of "by depositing correspondance in this mailbox (or contracting out for deposit), the sender acknowledges that the recipient is the rightful owner of the senders' entire property including all corporate, financial, real estate and equipment assets."


Bad analogy. The postman isn't a legal signatory for the sender.

Did you click on the "I Agree" button when you installed your software? Then you agreed to the contract. Apple didn't hold a gun to your head.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

rbrumble said:


> This is at least part of my point, some items in EULA's are not enforceable (see my previous post regarding Blizzard's mistake).


While some may be poorly written and struck down in court, that doesn't make all EULAs null and void.

Oh shoot, one grandma stole a candy bar... better lock all grannies up now.



rbrumble said:


> Imagine if a gas company sold gas but had a EULA saying what kind of car it could go in. Sounds absurd, and that's not a bad analogy of what Apple is trying to force people to do.


Yes, it is a bad analogy. You don't license the intellectual property of the gas, you buy a commodity. Apples and oranges sir.



rbrumble said:


> If this is such a black-and-white issue, why are Pystar's doors still open?


Because court proceedings can take a long time.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Bjornbro said:


> Don't make me break out my common sense hammer.


Anyone who falls for the whole "software = license" BS is the one in need of a common sense hammer. I bought it, I own it. I can resell it, I can destroy it, I can modify it, and I can install it on anything I choose.



Suite Edit said:


> Bad analogy.
> 
> Did you click on the "I Agree" button when you installed your software? Then you agreed to the contract. Apple didn't hold a gun to your head.


Equally bad. I already paid for the item, PRIOR to the presentation of the EULA. It's not binding. By clicking "I Agree", I explicitly DO NOT agree to any of the terms contained, I'm simply clicking through to get my software installed.

I didn't hold a gun to my mailman's head, but he still put the mail in my mailbox. Why? Because just like a EULA it is a dumb, unenforceable requirement that does not in any way constitute a contract. He specifically does not agree to my terms, He's just pushing through to get his job done.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Anyone who falls for the whole "software = license" BS is the one in need of a common sense hammer. I bought it, I own it. I can resell it, I can destroy it, I can modify it, and I can install it on anything I choose.


If you bought the software to own, then you would be paying in millions of dollars, not hundreds. What you bought was a license. Until you understand the concept of intellectual property, you'll keep banging you head against this logic wall.



bsenka said:


> Equally bad. I already paid for the item, PRIOR to the presentation of the EULA. It's not binding. By clicking "I Agree", I explicitly DO NOT agree to any of the terms contained, I'm simply clicking through to get my software installed.


You're onto something here. The main point of this argument is where one defines the rules and acceptance of the contract. If you are saying that all rules of a contract have to be defined at the time of money exchange, then that's interesting.

Software and hardware companies do not. It is when you break the seal on the warning label or click on the "agree" button that you are agreeing to their terms.

This, to me, is the only area of debate here.

You don't have to break that seal or click the agree button. You can take the item back.

You just admitted to clicking an agreement button. That button wasn't labeled "install" it was labeled "agree". I don't click any "agree" button that I don't agree with. Likewise, I don't sign a legal contract that I don't agree with.



bsenka said:


> I didn't hold a gun to my mailman's head, but he still put the mail in my mailbox. Why? Because just like a EULA it is a dumb, unenforceable requirement that does not in any way constitute a contract. He specifically does not agree to my terms, He's just pushing through to get his job done.


You entirely missed the point. The mailman doesn't have the legal power to agree on the behalf of the sender. You ARE your own legal representative. You are responsible for your own actions.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Suite Edit said:


> Did you click on the "I Agree" button when you installed your software? Then you agreed to the contract. Apple didn't hold a gun to your head.


It's more complicated than that. EULAs are "standard form contracts" in that they don't allow for any negotiation (i.e., take it or leave it). Since standard form contracts often involve unequal bargaining parties (say, a multi-national corporation and an individual consumer) courts have, in the past, ruled against the more powerful party (and declared parts, if not all, of a contract null and void) despite the fact that the less powerful party agreed to the contract.

Apple's "only run this software on Apple hardware" clause might be treated this way. Then again, it might not. I think it's too early for anyone to say it's enforceable simply because the user clicks on "I Agree".


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

Suite Edit said:


> While some may be poorly written and struck down in court, that doesn't make all EULAs null and void.


I never said that, if you think I did, show me where. What I have maintained is that just because it's in a EULA doesn't necessarily make it enforceable.



Suite Edit said:


> Yes, it is a bad analogy. You don't license the intellectual property of the gas, you buy a commodity. Apples and oranges sir.


Yes, it's a good analogy. I'm not licensing the IP, I'm licensing a physical copy of the software - whether I buy it on a disc or download it, it's the physical 1's and 0's I'm licensing. This is why each physical copy, or each instance downloaded, requires it's own license. 
If I were licensing the IP, I could start mass producing discs myself, because hey, I have rights to the IP.



Suite Edit said:


> Because court proceedings can take a long time.


Again, you don't need a court order to shut down a meth lab. If Pystar was clearly in the wrong, there wouldn't need to be a court case to decide so, they would just be shut down.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

rbrumble said:


> I never said that, if you think I did, show me where. What I have maintained is that just because it's in a EULA doesn't necessarily make it enforceable.


You cited the Blizzard scenario. I read your post as implying all EULAs are BS, and by extension, Apple's. If you're just saying that they are vulnerable to a court decision, then we can at least agree to that.



rbrumble said:


> Yes, it's a good analogy. I'm not licensing the IP, I'm licensing a physical copy of the software - whether I buy it on a disc or download it, it's the physical 1's and 0's I'm licensing. This is why each physical copy, or each instance downloaded, requires it's own license.


Please read-up on IP. You are not buying a physical license. You're buying a physical disc (small % of purchase price, to cover the pressing & packaging) and the right to use the intellectual property contained on it (large % of purchase price, to cover the R&D for THIS VERSION).

Same with downloads. What you're paying for is not the 1s & 0s, but the ability to USE them. That's why you can download a program 1,000 times with one license, but you can only install it one ONE computer. The license is for that one station. No one downloads the software 1,000 times though, because that's a waste of space and time.

You could even store the disk image on another computer... but the minute you want to INSTALL it on the 2nd station, you'll need a second license.



rbrumble said:


> If I were licensing the IP, I could start mass producing discs myself, because hey, I have rights to the IP.


Not with the standard software license you couldn't. You would need a different (and more expensive) agreement with the company.



rbrumble said:


> Again, you don't need a court order to shut down a meth lab. If Pystar was clearly in the wrong, there wouldn't need to be a court case to decide so, they would just be shut down.


Actually, you'd need a warrant to gain access. The people running your meth lab will also get due process. Apple is currently in court to stop this cloner. It's a process. Everything has a process, and to compare the immediacy of shutting down a death factory to a contract/IP case between 2 companies is more than a little off-base.

jfpoole is right, it's early to tell how this will all play-out. Apple's EULA could be nullified (or at least that section) by this particular case. If it is, then I'll likely build a cheap render box (with a PURCHASED copy of OSX). Until then, I'll keep actually agreeing to things I agree to.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

^^^ :clap::clap: Great points SE.


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

Suite Edit said:


> Please read-up on IP. You are not buying a physical license. You're buying a physical disc (small % of purchase price, to cover the pressing & packaging) and the right to use the intellectual property contained on it (large % of purchase price, to cover the R&D for THIS VERSION).
> 
> Same with downloads. What you're paying for is not the 1s & 0s, but the ability to USE them. That's why you can download a program 1,000 times with one license, but you can only install it one ONE computer. The license is for that one station. No one downloads the software 1,000 times though, because that's a waste of space and time.
> 
> You could even store the disk image on another computer... but the minute you want to INSTALL it on the 2nd station, you'll need a second license.


I call shenanigans on this, please cite this inference. A EULA has nothing to do with an IP license.

And screature, welcome back. Can't stay off that jock can you? Enjoy the ride.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

This is an interesting discussion and it seems in my mind to have parallels to copyright, as it applies to artworks, which I know a bit more about. 

Someone once buying a drawing I made, commented on how they might use it in their business advertising. I said "Nuh uh my friend, you'd have to pay me more money at a price we agree to for that." Even though they bought the physical object (the drawing) they didn't buy all reproduction rights to it, nor the right to use that for advertising. I still hold the copyright on that artwork, unless I specifically release that right. Realistically the person might go ahead and do that anyway and if I found out it probably wouldn't be worth my while to try and stop them, but that's how I understand copyright as it applies to artwork - the creator holds all rights to it unless they sell them. Of course my understanding could be overly simplistic or incorrect - IANAL.

So I think the idea that a software maker sells a license to use the software is pretty well established and based on other long standing law. I guess the question in the case of Apple's EULA might be do they have the right to tell you what picture frame you can put the artwork (the software) in, especially if it fits perfectly in said picture frame and doesn't infringe on the copyright holders rights in any reasonable way. You're not re-selling it, you're not copying it, you're not stealing it, you're not modifying it. If I understand it correctly, the hackintoshers who advise buying a copy of OSX are only patching the firmware on the target PC so it will run OSX, not patching OSX. So I guess as many here have said, the jury is out on this one.

I'm not sure why this subject generates so much heat. I guess some feel that this issue threatens Apple in a fundamental way, but I would guess that Apple is already prepared with several scenarios to respond to this issue however it plays out. I don't think this is a threat to Apple in any serious way and I would hazard a guess that the way of bucking the desires of growing numbers to put OSX on PCs is not either sustainable or where this is going to end. To go the restrictive route I think would be more of a threat to the company overall in a world where open source everything is forcing an examination of what copyright even means anymore.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rbrumble said:


> And screature, welcome back. Can't stay off that jock can you?..


 child...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

rbrumble said:


> And screature, welcome back. Can't stay off that jock can you? Enjoy the ride.


Hey rbrumble, with 84 posts I gather you don't spend as much time here as some. I'm not a mod, but most of here who value ehMac don't like the personal attack thing.

Can't we just discuss this without the jabs and heat?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Here are some facts in the fight between Pystar and Apple. The most recent being:

Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims, here are the salient points:

...in a 19-page order passed down on Tuesday, Judge William Alsup largely reject Psystar's claims and granted Apple's motion to have the countersuit thrown out of court should the clone maker not better its argument through an amended complaint that can be filed no later than Monday December 8th. Should the company fail to do so, all of its claims will be dismissed without leave to amend.

Central to Psystar's complaint was that Apple’s Mac OS X operating system is not reasonably interchangeable with other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and therefore comprises its own distinct market. The clone maker alleged that Apple has engaged in various forms of anti-competitive conduct in order to "protect its valuable monopoly in the Mac OS market" and that it has also run advertising campaigns to help define the Mac OS as a product separate and distinct from other operating systems.

Apple responded to Psystar's argument by asserting that the company's definition of a market comprised of a single brand of a product is neither legally nor factually plausible. Judge Alsup agreed, noting that the definition of an antitrust "relevant market" is typically a factual rather than a legal inquiry, but certain legal principles govern the definition.

"Whether products are part of the same or different markets under antitrust law depends on whether consumers view those products as reasonable substitutes for each other and would switch among them in response to changes in relative prices," he wrote.

As the Supreme Court has instructed, “The outer boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it.” [Brown Shoe v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325 (1962)]. As such, the relevant market must include “the group or groups of sellers or producers who have actual or potential ability to deprive each other of significant levels of business.” Thurman Industries, Inc. v. Pay ‘N Pak Stores, Inc., 875 F.2d 1369, 1374 (9th Cir.1989).

In theory, Judge Alsup said it may be possible that, in rare and unforeseen circumstances, a relevant market may consist of only one brand of a product, but added that Psystar's pleadings "fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple’s operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors."

Judge Alsup added that Psystar's pleading as a whole do not prove the Mac OS is an independent, single-product market, but instead work against the clone maker in providing several pieces of evidence to the contrary.

"The counterclaim itself explains that Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems," he wrote. "The counterclaim admits that market studies indicate that, although Apple computers with Mac OS enjoy strong brand recognition and loyalty, they are not wholly lacking in competition."

"Psystar also points to Apple’s extensive advertising campaigns," he continued. "Those advertising campaigns more plausibly support an inference contrary to that asserted in the counterclaim -- vigorous advertising is a sign of competition, not a lack thereof. If Mac OS simply had no reasonable substitute, Apple’s vigorous advertising would be wasted money. The advertising campaigns suggest a need to enhance brand recognition and lure consumers from a competitor."

As such, the judge concluded that Psystar's counterclaim does not plausibly allege that Mac OS is an independent market. He noted that unlike a case cited by the clone maker involving Kodak -- where customers did not knowingly bind themselves to a single brand that later prohibited them from switching among competitors in the primary market -- Apple makes it clear in courting its customers that they'll be locked into using the Mac OS only on Apple systems.

"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."

The judge also dismissed the remainder of Psystar's stated claims for a lack of sufficient evidence to back them up, including allegations that Apple is violating the common law of unfair competition, the Cartwright Act, and the California Business and Professions Code.

"For the above-stated reasons, Psystar’s claim that Mac OS-compatible computer hardware systems constitute a distinct submarket or aftermarket contravenes the pertinent legal standards, and Apple’s motion to dismiss Psystar’s federal counterclaims is therefore granted," he wrote.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

rbrumble said:


> I call shenanigans on this, please cite this inference. A EULA has nothing to do with an IP license.
> 
> And screature, welcome back. Can't stay off that jock can you? Enjoy the ride.


What inference?

The text you quoted was explaining IP, which you clearly didn't understand... since you thought you weren't buying a user license for Apple's intellectual property (read: you can USE their IP).

If I'm wrong explain why in a clear, intelligent manner with references.

And please leave the jock-riding comments at home. It brings the level of discussion on this board down a notch and I have no interest continuing the conversation at that level.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

So Apples original suit with Pystar is the only active suit being considered and as Suite Edit indicated these things take time, it is the courts we are dealing with after all and this is contract law, not criminal court, (which takes long enough as it is). As indicated by Engadget in their article Apple's lawsuit against Psystar examined here is the case that Apple is making against Pystar:

# Copyright infringement: According to Apple, Psystar modified and redistributed OS X without a license, so straight copyright law applies. This is probably a winning argument -- even if the EULA (which forbids modification and redistribution) is held invalid, redistributing a modified copyrighted work is a big no-no.

# Contributory and induced copyright infringement: As we pointed out a while back, by building a business model around the knowing copyright infringement of its customers, Psystar is probably liable for contributory copyright infringement -- this is the same principle that MGM v. Grokster was decided upon back in 2005.

# Breach of contract: This is the EULA violation claim. *Contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, EULAs in general have been tested in courts many times and have been held enforceable in several states, including Florida, where Psystar is located. In addition, EULAs are currently valid in the federal Ninth circuit, where Apple's brought suit. It's true that there are some cases holding that EULAs are unenforceable and the Apple's Leopard EULA has never been litigated specifically, but this claim isn't nearly as shaky as it's been made out to be -- it's just not a big money-winner like a copyright claim.
*
# Inducing breach of contract: Apple says Psystar "advised, encouraged, and assisted others" in violating the EULA. Considering that's the heart of Psystar's business, we'd say this one lives and dies with the main EULA claim.

# Trademark infringement: Apple has registered trademarks on both "Mac OS" and "Leopard," and it says that Psystar infringed those marks when it advertised that the Open Computer could run "Mac OS Leopard" in a way that made it seem like it was an official product. We're not convinced that this is the strongest claim -- Psystar was basically marketing itself on defiance of Apple, not any kind of official support -- but we can see how a court would buy it, especially since Apple makes a big deal of how Psystar's subpar machines were causing harm to the OS X brand.

# Trade dress infringement: This one is pretty interesting, actually -- Apple says that the Mac OS X user interface is well known to consumers and has become associated with Apple to the point where it is protectable trade dress -- and that Psystar infringed on Apple's trade dress rights when it shipped Open Computers that contained OS X. It's around this point where you get the sense that Apple's going for the jugular -- there's no way that any damages Apple gets from Psystar are going to cover the additional cost of litigating a claim like this.

# Trademark dilution: Dilution is a special trademark protection reserved for "famous" brands -- Apple undoubtedly qualifies. It's a complicated doctrine, but basically Apple says that by using its trademarks, Psystar caused damage to its brand.

# State unfair competition: Apple says Psystar violated California law by infringing its copyrighted works, specifically the California Business and Professions Code. We're not up on our California law -- any readers want to flesh this out for us? We'd say it's just a failsafe claim to at least get an injunction in case everything else gets thrown out.

# Common law unfair competition: This is basically the same as the state unfair competition claim, only based on a different set of doctrines.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Suite Edit said:


> You don't have to break that seal or click the agree button. You can take the item back.


That's the key point right there, you can't take it back. Opened software is not returnable.

So we've paid for something, weren't told we have to agree to 'terms' before using that item, and once we find out, it's beyond the point of no return regardless of whether or not we agree to the terms.

I think that's where it's a weak leg to stand on, legally. They either have to change their practices and have people sign or digitally sign an agreement prior to purchasing the software, or else they can stick their EULAs up their ass.

And how about movies, CDs, etc? There aren't any EULAs at all when we purchase those, yet we're told we've just purchased a 'license' to listen or watch what we've bought.

Bah.... the legality of intellectual property rights annoy the hell out of me.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kloan said:


> That's the key point right there, you can't take it back. Opened software is not returnable.
> 
> So we've paid for something, weren't told we have to agree to 'terms' before using that item, and once we find out, it's beyond the point of no return regardless of whether or not we agree to the terms.
> 
> ...



It is of course understandable that opened software can't be returned because of the ability to copy it. However, I do believe that the EULA should be made available at the point of purchase prior to paying for the item and I think this needs to be changed. If you are buying OSX online the EULA is on the Apple site to read, but you do have to look for it.

That being said I also think that in this day and age unless you are acquiring open source software or freeware it is pretty safe to assume that a EULA is involved. I mean in all reality unless you are newly born or nearly dead, you should know that software is created through the labor of people for profit and accordingly copyright restrictions or EULAs are part of the territory.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

kloan said:


> That's the key point right there, you can't take it back. Opened software is not returnable.
> 
> So we've paid for something, weren't told we have to agree to 'terms' before using that item, and once we find out, it's beyond the point of no return regardless of whether or not we agree to the terms.
> 
> I think that's where it's a weak leg to stand on, legally. They either have to change their practices and have people sign or digitally sign an agreement prior to purchasing the software, or else they can stick their EULAs up their ass.


The seals (stickers) have a warning on them. Something along the lines of "By breaking this seal, you accept the terms laid out in our EULA". That's in a booklet that came along with the CD/DVD. Read it... if you don't like what you read, take it back.

Now, here's where you're right: it falls apart a bit. The store is going to hassle you if the shrink-wrap has been broken on the box, even if the sticker wasn't. That's the crappy part. You might have to go over their head to the software company for a refund.

It gets MUCH easier for software downloads. You'll have to check a box or click a button that says you agree BEFORE you download. Much better. And for the sake of toxins/plastics/waste, much healthier than boxed software too 

Now, music CDs & movie/TV DVDs... that's another story beejacon Hey, HMV, take back this Lil Jon CD! I was drunk when I bought it and it's absolutely terrible!!!:clap:


----------



## lumpy cheeseman (Aug 28, 2008)

IBTL!!!! omg...roflcopter. i need to sign in more often...seriously....

ok, here goes my responses:




Chas3 said:


> Funny, I posted in the "Anything Mac" forum on looking to aqquire a quadra 700 so I could build a computer inside it, and my intentions were clearly to run a hackintosh in that machine, yet my thread was not closed.
> 
> -Chase


i've not seen the thread in question, but if you are planning on putting newer mac hardware into the case..its not exactly a hackintosh. if you mentioned regular pc hardware, than yeah i guess it would be. dont know, didnt see the thread. take a pic for me though, that ought to look cool seeing leopard or something "on" a quadra lol



screature said:


> No you aren't getting ripped of on the hardware. Hardware sales subsidize the development of the software. If it wasn't for Hardware sales do you really think that a license for the most sophisticated OS in the world could be sold for a paltry $129? You have to look at the big picture and Apple's complete business model. If you don't like it buy a PC.


i'm gonna have to kinda sorta slightly disagree with the not getting ripped.... heres why: the hardware that the newer macs are built on appears so far to be based on pretty common pc hardware. yes, the mobo's are not direct pc drop-ins, but enough stuff is the same. and being that they are making them in china (a disgrace i might add...we need jobs in this country) their cost of production is definately lower than it would be here. materials are cheap, production is cheap (i've worked in several types of factories, from plastic injection to foundries...i know what it really costs...) and obviously they software..i'm sorry...the "license" is cheap, as its being sold for 130 bucks..sorry, 129... yes...i'd say we are getting just a little ripped on it.



Suite Edit said:


> Haha, that's quite the scenario!
> 
> Or, Apple could just say that they will not officially support any other hardware than Apple's own. People are on their own for compatibility, support, etc. if they choose to install on a beige box, but they are no longer breaking contract law to do so.
> 
> ...


i can see it happening. people with the knowledge of computers and the workings of will make hackintoshes, and install osx (for the sake of argument, lets just assume they did pay for a license), then all their friends come over and see it. well prolly 2/3 or more of the friends dont know didly squat about the workings of a computer, so they will instead get a genuine mac. hey how about that, mac still wins on both the software and hardware front! woohoo!!



screature said:


> And why would *large numbers* of people want to buy a license for an OS that once they have installed it they would have no support for? Where is the incentive in that? I think the pressure that would be brought to bear on Apple to provide support would result in exactly the scenario I outlined.


people that have hackintoshes still get support. at least the parts that matter. from everything i've seen hackintosh osx can still download and apply updates. i have an emac with tiger. to me getting updates means its still supported. 



Bjornbro said:


> :lmao: Now that is the most LMFAO post I've seen on ehMac to date! Why? It's the thought that PC users would actually _buy_ the Mac OS as opposed to their _usual_ methods.
> 
> Am I generalizing? I don't think so, if modders disagree with the EULA then what _else_ don't they agree with.


um...and what pray tell are the "usual" methods? the majority of people actually do purchase the pc, and then at the ill advice of the dolts at geek squad, they buy more software. imagine that. then they go to walmart, because they love cheap china goods, and they see more software on the shelf. they buy it!! 



a7mc said:


> I just have to laugh at the strict "black or white" views of some people (one person in particular) on here.
> 
> Make sure you only cross the street at an intersection, and only when you have the right of way. Make sure you always come to a complete stop and count to two at every stop sign. Oh, and if the product you want doesn't exist, you really shouldn't want it. Just wait for someone else to make it, because they know what you REALLY need and they should dictate what you have access to. Innovation? Creativity? Resourcefulness? Leave that to others.
> 
> ...


what he said 



RC51Pilot said:


> Wow - what exactly are you trying to imply by that statement? Almost pangs of an elitist attitude. Almost makes one NOT want to be a Mac user/owner after all.


i agree



Mr.Tickles said:


> Its not really elitist. I can speak from experience that basically everybody I know with a PC didn't pay for anything if they could avoid it, including the OS, all software they are using, and so on.


arent we the same? after all we use firefox instead of safari, thunderbird instead of mail, openoffice instead of ms office or iwork. so are we the mac user any different? all three i just listed dont cost a shiny red cent, or whatever the canadian equivalent is (my canadian joke of the day right there btw)



RC51Pilot said:


> And I know quite a few Mac users who do the same thing - It's not a PC/Windows only behaviour. That's the elitist part. You imply that Mac users would never stoop to such levels. That's just plain and utter BS.


people already know what i think about pirating..so i'll just go..... "yep"



Mr.Tickles said:


> Its kind of a conundrum isn't it? If apple says OK, users of OSX might spike but they would lose hardware sales.
> 
> OSX wouldn't be as much of a loss leader if it had 2x the users though.
> 
> ...


noo, not everything made in china is crap, just most of it....ask me about the multiple batches of carparts that failed on me and my boss....guess where they were made... idk about you, but a waterpump grenading on me when going down the highway just makes me feel all warm inside....wait a minute...thats not warm inside...thats antifreeze all over... i've got tons more to say on the made in china issue...but i'll save that for another thread..



bsenka said:


> That is a highly debatable point. The growing sentiment, and the frequent judgement of many courts, is that EULAs do NOT constitute a contract due to the nature of how they are applied. The contract is already complete when the sale is made. The EULA is applied after the contract was already agreed to and completed. That very fact could actually make EULAs ILLEGAL. Some judges have said essentially that. Besides that, there is a world of difference between breaking a contract and breaking the law.
> 
> Some EULAs are impossible anyway. Apple's Safari for Windows shipped with a EULA stating that it can only be installed on Apple branded computers too. Clearly they had no intention of enforcing that, right?
> 
> What if I decided to put a EULA style contract inside the lid of mailbox? It could say something along the lines of "by depositing correspondance in this mailbox (or contracting out for deposit), the sender acknowledges that the recipient is the rightful owner of the senders' entire property including all corporate, financial, real estate and equipment assets."





rbrumble said:


> This is at least part of my point, some items in EULA's are not enforceable (see my previous post regarding Blizzard's mistake).
> 
> Imagine if a gas company sold gas but had a EULA saying what kind of car it could go in. Sounds absurd, and that's not a bad analogy of what Apple is trying to force people to do.
> 
> If this is such a black-and-white issue, why are Pystar's doors still open?


per eula, we are pretty much to use an os (be it windows or osx) as it comes, without modding....yet....we do things like install games, use firefox instead of safari or IE, etc etc...



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Hey rbrumble, with 84 posts I gather you don't spend as much time here as some. I'm not a mod, but most of here who value ehMac don't like the personal attack thing.
> 
> Can't we just discuss this without the jabs and heat?


number of posts doesnt exactly correlate to time spent online..... i dont often post on this forum, for instance, but i do read a lot of the posts.



giggety giggety, giggety goo, alright!


----------



## Darien Red Sox (Oct 24, 2006)

screature said:


> It is of course understandable that opened software can't be returned because of the ability to copy it. However, I do believe that the EULA should be made available at the point of purchase prior to paying for the item and I think this needs to be changed. If you are buying OSX online the EULA is on the Apple site to read, but you do have to look for it.
> 
> That being said I also think that in this day and age unless you are acquiring open source software or freeware it is pretty safe to assume that a EULA is involved. I mean in all reality unless you are newly born or nearly dead, you should know that software is created through the labor of people for profit and accordingly copyright restrictions or EULAs are part of the territory.


It dose directly state in the EULA that you CAN return it if you don't agree with the EULA. I have not attempted to do this but I am sure that most stores would not give you any problems if you paid by credit card. When a customer pays by credit card they have a good amount of lavage over the store, and can enter a dispute through the credit card company, some such as American Express will easily refund you money meaning the store must take you to court and end up at a loss because then they would be violating the EULA. On other cards disputes can take a wile because you must send it to them in writing and then the other party has so long to make there case, once they make there case the credit card company decides who is right (this is not a binding decision and can be disputed in court), if the other party dose not respond with in (about 6 months) you win in default. Even if you credit card was no help you could still take them to court to get the money, you have the EULA to back you up, most of the time an e-mail to someone high up at the company (if you send it to customer service with the threat to sue it will get there quickly) will save you from going to court, get you a prompt refund, and letter that goes on and on about how sorry they are and how they are under new management so please give them anther chance.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Darien Red Sox said:


> It dose directly state in the EULA that you CAN return it if you don't agree with the EULA....


Ok DRS good to know, I was responding to kloan's post and assumed he was speaking from experience at trying to return software. It would make sense to me though that some vendors wouldn't allow it because of the potential for simply copying the software and then returning it. (basically theft)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

lumpy cheeseman said:


> IBTL!!!! omg...roflcopter. i need to sign in more often...seriously....
> 
> i'm gonna have to kinda sorta slightly disagree with the not getting ripped.... heres why: the hardware that the newer macs are built on appears so far to be based on pretty common pc hardware. yes, the mobo's are not direct pc drop-ins, but enough stuff is the same. and being that they are making them in china (a disgrace i might add...we need jobs in this country) their cost of production is definately lower than it would be here. materials are cheap, production is cheap (i've worked in several types of factories, from plastic injection to foundries...i know what it really costs...) and obviously they software..i'm sorry...the "license" is cheap, as its being sold for 130 bucks..sorry, 129... yes...i'd say we are getting just a little ripped on it.


Well we will have to agree to disagree. As was said Apple's hardware sales subsidise (loss leader) their OS sales and development, when you buy a Mac you aren't just buying the parts (components) you are buying into all the R&D that goes into the OS development as well as the hardware, you can't simply say that the OS only adds $130 worth of added value to the hardware because that isn't the business model Apple is based on.

Also "being ripped off" is very subjective and relative. We all make decisions about our purchases whether they are "worth" it or not after we have laid down the cash. I would fathom a guess that most Mac users do not feel ripped off because the experience of using one makes it worth the premium that is paid. We do tend to get what we pay for. Using a Mac, is a situation where the sum is greater than it's parts (at least relative to a PC with Windows).

I have been instrumental in switching many PC users to Macs and they all said they wished they had done it sooner, no buyers remorse or feeling of being "ripped off".



lumpy cheeseman said:


> people that have hackintoshes still get support. at least the parts that matter. from everything i've seen hackintosh osx can still download and apply updates. i have an emac with tiger. to me getting updates means its still supported.


Oh sure you can download the updates and then in most circumstances jump through a few if not many additional hoops to make it work properly, why do you think Pystar has a disclaimer about updates? Not "support" in my books. And since when is an eMac a Hackintosh?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Darien Red Sox said:


> It dose directly state in the EULA that you CAN return it if you don't agree with the EULA.


Most stores have a no exceptions rule that opened software cannot be returned. I have tried, and they will not do it, not even if you paid by credit card.


----------



## lumpy cheeseman (Aug 28, 2008)

screature said:


> Well we will have to agree to disagree. As was said Apple's hardware sales subsidise (loss leader) their OS sales and development, when you buy a Mac you aren't just buying the parts (components) you are buying into all the R&D that goes into the OS development as well as the hardware, you can't simply say that the OS only adds $130 worth of added value to the hardware because that isn't the business model Apple is based on.
> 
> Also "being ripped off" is very subjective and relative. We all make decisions about our purchases whether they are "worth" it or not after we have laid down the cash. I would fathom a guess that most Mac users do not feel ripped off because the experience of using one makes it worth the premium that is paid. We do tend to get what we pay for. Using a Mac, is a situation where the sum is greater than it's parts (at least relative to a PC with Windows).
> 
> ...



i wasnt implying that my emac was a hackintosh lol. i was referencing it as older hardware.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

lumpy cheeseman said:


> number of posts doesnt exactly correlate to time spent online..... i dont often post on this forum, for instance, but i do read a lot of the posts.


Yes, you are right, it doesn't correlate at all. In my post I was attempting to suggest that the culture at ehMac doesn't tolerate much in the way of personal attacks as opposed to most of the internet, which positively revels in it. This is why many of us like ehMac as a discussion forum, — it remains mostly civil and intelligent.

It's possible that someone with less than 100 ehMac posts might not have picked up on that nuance, which was why I mentioned it. It's also entirely possible that someone who lurks a lot on ehMac without posting is quite familiar with the ehMac culture, in which case my mentioning this would be unnecessary. But it did no harm to bring it up as a reminder when the discussion seemed to be heading in that direction.


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

Suite Edit said:


> What inference?
> 
> The text you quoted was explaining IP, which you clearly didn't understand... since you thought you weren't buying a user license for Apple's intellectual property (read: you can USE their IP).
> 
> ...


How about this: I do not accept your inference that an End-User Licence Agreement is an IP licensing agreement. Your position is predicated on this assumption, and yet several Google searches and a visit to Wikipedia does not show any link between an IP license and an End-User Licensing Agreement. Please cite a source showing they are undeniably equivalent.

E.g. From Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Intellectual property rights grant exclusive rights to intellectual creations; they grant ownership over creations of the mind. These exclusive rights allow owners of intellectual property to reap monopoly profits. These monopoly profits provide a financial incentive for the creation of intellectual property, and pay associated research and development costs.[citation needed] Some commentators, such as David Levine and Michele Boldrin, dispute this justification.[4]"

Read the entire page and it will be clear to you that IP discussions are always around intangible things, e.g. ideas (actually, specifically ideas); IP dictate how the ideas of a particular type of product is owned, and other licensing agreements would decide how it is manufactured/distributed and how the wealth created is distributed.

Here's the first-year explanation: If I invent something, I hold the IP rights. If I make an agreement for someone else to make and distribute it, or someone to use it, that's not an IP license. An IP license would allow someone near unlimited rights to do as they would with it, for a fee. Or not, depends on the license. Just because it's one and zeros that you're licensing, doesn't make it an idea. Think about it, everything manufactured started with an idea, buying it in no way involves an IP license.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Anyway, it gives me warm fuzzies to know this thread didn't die when I wasn't on at all today. I was up all night last helping my wife deliver our baby girl, so yayyyy for me. I'm quite exhausted, and not feeling quite so testy today.

And yes, I did resort to ad hominum with screature when I said he was a jock rider; but in my defense, I only did this because at the time he was riding the Mayors jock. The next time I'm in the Ottawa area, we should meet for coffee so you can find out what a hoopy frood I can be when I'm not testy. Not all corners of the inkerwebs are the Underground forum. Salut!

/grouphug


----------



## lumpy cheeseman (Aug 28, 2008)

gratz on becoming a father. i'm a father of two beautiful boys, so i know what an experience the birth is.


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

Thanks, this is our second too. I'm one of those old dads...you know...university, grad school, etc, etc, kind of delayed things a bit


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

I noticed this thread upon having my thread about building a hackintosh closed. This seems to me to be among the most idiotic, contradictory policies I've ever heard on this site. I've seen plenty of talk about jailbreaking iPhones, which is deemed a grey area, much like the whole hackintosh concept is.

This site is built on the foundation of being "Canada's Mac, iPod, iPhone and Apple TV community". I like it because the community is filled with like minded Canadian users. I figured I would reach out to a community I feel comfortable interacting in to try and get some help with my project. Instead my thread got closed because the Mayor frowns on the whole concept. However you may feel about Hackintoshes, they fall squarely within the world of Mac these days. You may want to turn your nose up at the idea, but it isn't going to go away, it's just going to get more prevalent. Until the day Apple has more then 3 desktop models there will always be users who don't find their needs serviced.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

modsuperstar - I agree with you whole heartedly, but the do-gooders that frequent and operate this site have imposed their fascist views and thus quashed our right to free speech. So you aren't allowed to speak of the details of the how-to's to create a hackintosh on the forum.

I know it sucks.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Your thread should never have been closed. It was asking about what hardware to use, not details of how to hack the OS.


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

And on a happier note, I picked up my Dell mini 9 yesterday afternoon and today it's an OS X 10.5.6 powerhouse. 

Here's a pic of the two of us snuggling (I'm happier than I look, it was hard to balance the Dell and reach my mouse for the picture, hahah):


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Actually, "Hackintoshes" may become _more_ scarce in the future -- Apple could _at any time_ start tying the OS to proprietary chips only found in genuine Macs, or some other scheme. I'd hate for them to do that, but if people continue to abuse Apple's good will, they may get forced into it at some point (see: Microsoft/Adobe "activation" -- saints protect us from that on a Mac!!).


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

I'm pretty sure they have to some extent, they use a different boot method that makes creating a hackintosh that works properly a real p.i.t.a. It's nowhere as simple as installing XP or ubuntu, that's for sure.

Perseverance is required for this mod, it's a bit of a marathon.

But look what I made: I own the smallest Mac in town! This thing is awesome, and all you naysayers deep down wish you had one, lol.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

rbrumble said:


> But look what I made: I own the smallest Mac in town! This thing is awesome, and all you naysayers deep down wish you had one, lol.


It's kinda cute I guess, but my big hands wouldn't enjoy that keyboard -- especially the Windows button, that would have to be painted over.

Oh and the screen is too small for my big ideas.

But other than that, glad you are happy!


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

yes, the world is a much better place thanks to your big ideas


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

I dont like netbooks for much the same reasons, too small.

They also aren't exactly powerhouses. But then you get what you pay for, which is probably a "SeeGayte" (misspelled chinese knock off) hard disk, and an "intol" processor.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

chas_m said:


> Actually, "Hackintoshes" may become _more_ scarce in the future -- Apple could _at any time_ start tying the OS to proprietary chips only found in genuine Macs, or some other scheme. I'd hate for them to do that, but if people continue to abuse Apple's good will, they may get forced into it at some point (see: Microsoft/Adobe "activation" -- saints protect us from that on a Mac!!).


That concept is kinda laughable. Hackers always find a way. If they do go that way it'll just make them more like EA, where the hackers have a better, unencumbered user experience then the people who actually paid to own the software.

The truth of the matter is that Apple knows how Microsoft got to where they are in the world. Piracy. If it wasn't for the ease of piracy back in the old days Windows never would have taken the foothold it did. Apple always ran proprietary stuff. You think its any coincidence that Apple is gaining in marketshare since they switched to Intel? More people getting the Apple experience, hacked or otherwise, drives new Mac purchases as people get exposed to the Apple experience.


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

Mr.Tickles said:


> I dont like netbooks for much the same reasons, too small.
> 
> They also aren't exactly powerhouses. But then you get what you pay for, which is probably a "SeeGayte" (misspelled chinese knock off) hard disk, and an "intol" processor.


Educate yourself:

YouTube - MacBook Air vs Dell Mini 9 Leopard Boot


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It all comes down to application - a Netbook buyer isn't too interested in Photoshopping some artwork for a billboard, nor are they interested in lugging around a giant pizzabox sized machine.

For my purposes, if I was to replace one of my iBooks, I would definitely look at a Netbook just for portability when I go to the local HotSpot, for the purposes of downloading at higher speeds than the dial-up I am stuck with in this neighbourhood. It may even be good enough to get previews from my camera when I am on a field trip; though it would be worthless if I was scanning documents on a field trip. It's all about uses these days.

It's too bad this thread way hijacked by the EULA fanatics. For myself, I think people go Hackintosh because what is available from the Evil Empire is just so sad. Like they are advertising the virtues of XP as being "reliable" and "dependable", and that the Evil Empire rarely if ever mentions the word "Vista". It's pretty bad when the steaming heap of rubbish called XP is just so much "better" than the flagship OS Fi$ta. If Apple was smart, they would just start mass marketing OSX and put the Evil Empire out of it's misery - they'd have to ship ever defibrillator in North America to Redmond to restart The Ballmer after yet another rage attack in the board of directors conference room...

But even without such craziness, Apple should think about their own products and start plugging into the demand, with a slick Netbook at the bottom end, a 12" notebook for portability, and a minitower or desktop that can accept some expansion cards without being half the size of a desk. And they should stop chintzing out on their current machines, like put the FireWire back in, have USB ports that are properly powered, proper video chips with proper memory that doesn't drain away main memory - ar at least stop building machines that have batteries that explode or burst into flames.

And if there was some way of running AutoCAD and MasterCAM without Windoze, I could stop having this nightmare of myself buying a Windoze box, though that may be enivitable unless Apple releases an OS that isn't saddled with crud like Spotlight...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

rbrumble said:


> Educate yourself:
> 
> YouTube - MacBook Air vs Dell Mini 9 Leopard Boot


SSD on the dell vs a HDD on the mac

kind of silly to compare

*EDIT* but i agree with you if your point was that hackitoshes always use inferior parts... that's really model specific.


----------



## rbrumble (May 21, 2005)

i-rui said:


> SSD on the dell vs a HDD on the mac
> 
> kind of silly to compare
> 
> *EDIT* but i agree with you if your point was that hackitoshes always use inferior parts... that's really model specific.


It's not a silly comparison, it's a demonstration of this platforms potential. I bought it loaded up with the 16 gig SSD, bluetooth, etc, and right now it's configured similarly to the G4 iBook it's replacing.

It is able to run everything I need it to run on the road, using the OS environment I choose to run in, for $450 tax included. Find me an equivalent Apple product at that price point, and I'll buy two. In the meantime, I'll make my own.


----------

