MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Apple needs to stop being evil and allow people to install the software they buy on any computer the want.

Dec 06, 08 - 10:11 am Comment from: DLMeyer

Not speaking the language limits the information I can get from the web site (DUH!), but it looks like this is close to the mini-tower configuration some of us have been advocating. Again, a LOT of information not available to mono-linguistic oafs like me. And, there was no mention of how loud it could get in operation.
Apple will tell us if it's any good. The speed of their response will let us know. If it's garbage, they will take their time. If it's an "Apple-like" model ... is that the sound of a suit being filed?

I don't understand why Apple refuses to allow anyone without a Mac to install OSX. All Apple has to do is include a disclaimer in the install process absolving Apple of any responsibility for loss of data, incompatibilities, etc.

Dec 06, 08 - 10:22 am Comment from: DLMeyer

While I was typing my multi-line epic, John said: Apple needs to stop being evil and allow people to install the software they buy on any computer the(y) want.
That precise scenario will NOT happen. You put OSX on a $500 PC and you are going to have support problems. One of the reasons Apple does NOT have support problems is because they only support a limited assortment of good-quality equipment. I guess Apple could post a semi-restrictive list of "Mac-quality" parts so that cloners could build XP/Linux systems that could be upgraded to OSX with Apple's blessing - but not support.

ncvnb -

You don't understand because you clearly don't have much experience in business or technology. Apple cannot sell a product and tell people "Hey, you bought it so do whatever floats your boat... oh, and by the way, we're completely washing our hands of you." It's just not possible, especially from a legal standpoint. Not only that, but regardless of whether Apple denies any responsibility it is still their product and their reputation that will be tarnished when all these copies of Mac OS X are floating around blowing up on everyone's generic unsupported hardware. How do you not see what a mess that would be?

Go buy a pc. it's not evil to insure your product is quality. And besides... you do realize how expensive that would be don't you? F@$k the clones... buy a mini if you don't want to spend, but want an Apple. Don't want a mini and don't want a macbook for some "professional" use... be a professional and buy better tools, the pro systems recoup their cost if you actually do any work on them.
You forget all the people just stealing all the work that's gone into os X. It's out there... you could always be on of those A$$holes if you want, but you definitely get what you deserve.

Apple has to quikcly build their new Mac lines with PA Semi's special chips to differenciate Apple's brend from any PCs.
These so called Mac clones are only there by concurence purposes, tending to prove that Mac are just like PCs but sold "too expensive".
Apple has to show up with essential and technical singularities with still the hability to run any other OS but with an OS that will no more be instalable on other platforms.

Tony thank you at last someone who gets it. If BMW sold its engines and said that 'you are free to add them to any cars you like but without any responsibility on our part' do people really think that when some prat puts one in a SMART car and ends up killing people as it lurches out of control that no one will hold BMW in any way responsible? The irony is that certain powers that be, seem to feel it perfectly acceptable to force Apple into a very similar position. Higher costs, slower development and lower profits- all enforced. Now who would benefit from that scenario I wonder?

"when some prat puts one in a SMART car and ends up killing people as it lurches out of control"

Automakers already sell crate engines. You can buy a BMW engine and do whatever you like with it.

Secondly once any BMW is sold, you can pull the engine out of it and do whatever you like with it and BMW has no legal right to stop you. But they can refuse to honor any kind of warranty.

So I think you're right. Mac OS X should be more like a car engine. I'm glad you finally get it.

The legal barriers you mention are a fantasy which exists in your mind only.

Equating a car engine to software is like comparing a banana to a Leer jet. I think there is an intelligence barrier in YOUR mind, and it's not a fantasy.

Some of you are forgetting, or just don't care, that the majority of Apple's business is *not* OS X! That said, there is no chance of them spending the resources to make OS X work with generic hardware and why should they? Why reach the "masses" (vocal minority of geeks/penny pinchers, really) by allowing the sale of crappy computers with OS X installed that could very well tarnish the brand image they have painstakingly built! If you can't afford a mac, or want to custom build one, buy Windows or put linux on it.

Dec 06, 08 - 12:45 pm Comment from: qka

Folks -

SMART , like Mini (Cooper) is a BMW brand, if I understand correctly.

Dan LaMee . . . you nailed it. My thoughts exactly.

Dec 06, 08 - 01:10 pm Comment from: Andy

Unless Steve has a change of heart, it's unlikely he'll allow Apple to license out its OS ever again. From his perspective it goes against the company's entire design philosophy -- Apple are in control of the whole widget, the whole experience. Afterall, one of MS's greatest failings is that Windows constantly breaks on mismatched hardware and the like.

Plus, remember, licensing can be very dangerous if there's any fallout between the two parties involved as you're giving a potential competitor your 'Coke formula'. Now can you remotely imagine Steve accepting that?

And, so far Steve's strategy has not let them down, considering Apple is now in better health than any of its competitors.

Either buy a Mac and enjoy the experience or pick up a Linux distro for your PCs, in the end.

@Over Done
It's spelled Learjet, not Leer jet. I think there is an intelligence barrier in YOUR mind, and it's not a fantasy.

Or maybe you were speaking of the super-speedy voyeur?
If you were writing about the high-velocity Peeping Tom, I apologise.

@john
You need to stop being evil and allow people to profit from YOUR labour, designs, production, and marketing of high-quality products, with no recompense to you.
If you already do this, then I apologise for assuming otherwise.

Spelling mistake on their 'condiciones generales' page. They really put a lot of thought into that:

2nd paragraph, penultimate sentence: "un Compurtador Apple"

nice . . . .

@qka
"SMART , like Mini (Cooper) is a BMW brand, if I understand correctl"

WRONG!
the Smart car is Mercedes Benz

I should know, I own one.

Dec 06, 08 - 01:57 pm Comment from: alansky

There's a sucker born every minute.

Apple makes their profit from hardware sales. Allowing bottom-feeder PC assemblers to sell OS X machines would be suicide for Apple's business model, not to mention creating support nightmares.

Do we expect Sony to support their Playstation OS on non-Sony hardware?

Do we expect RIM to support their Blackberry OS on non-RIM smartphones?

Why, then, do idiots continue to expect Apple to support Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware?

Dec 06, 08 - 03:12 pm Comment from: Renderdog

Why are people complaining Apple doesn't license OS X? Fact is you *can* install OS X on a non-Apple PC, just takes a little digging and Apple doesn't really care if individuals do it (MacWorld recently published an article on building one, FrankenMac I think they called it).

Apple makes money selling computers, and OS X is a big selling point. They're doing well with that strategy, sales up 30% a year, why would they hurt themselves by helping other PC companies sell computers?

Dec 06, 08 - 03:58 pm Comment from: PT

Let's face it: the mac's hardware is way overpriced. Component for component, what is the diffrerence between a mac and a dell, apart from the sad attempt at differencing: the aluminium (note the correct SI spelling of aluminium- not aluminum) case? Really, one could buy a pc with exactly the same specs as a mac, for a significant saving. For me, the only big plus of a mac is OSX. It's a big plus, but paying a $500 - $1000 premium on hardware to run osx is a bit rich. While OSX costs $120, its the hardware price premium that make it not unlike microsh*t's pricing of windows, just in a more subtle form. Actually, it's probably more for OSX than windows. Well a new macbook certainly costs waaaaaaay more than a comparable PC with windows.

Recently the organization I work for was evaluating the purchase of about 400 notebooks. It came down to white macbooks and a PC from HP. Needless to say, the mac didn't win: apple jacked up the price of the white mac by 25% (currency exchange issues, still it's very rich pricing for an obsolete computer) so what was a fairly poor comparison to begin with became a really, really poor comparison to finish with.

Apple is becoming greedy and arrogant again. The very things that almost killed it first time around (requiring microsh*t to bail it out so it could point to a viable competitor to avoid anti-trust case)

I'm tired of car analogies. Instead, I recommend anyone who thinks Apple needs to "stop being evil" and let people install and sell OS X on whatever they want should go to the grocery store, fill up a cart, and pay the clerk whatever the shopper thinks the groceries are worth.

Dec 06, 08 - 04:32 pm Comment from: ken1w

> Apple needs to stop being evil and allow people to install the software they buy on any computer the want.

Nope, you are wrong. Apple sells and prices Mac OS X in-a-box as an upgrade for existing Macs. All supported Macs came with Mac OS X already. Therefore, there is no stand-alone Mac OS X product.

If Apple ever does sell Mac OS X in-a-box as a stand-alone product, a fair price for it would be $300-400.

Dec 06, 08 - 04:43 pm Comment from: Sixvodkas

@john,

Your grasp of the English language is pathetic and leaves much to be desired.

"Evil"?

You're a churlish little brat who's throwing a temper tantrum simply because someone isn't doing what you want them to do.

Let's take a look at the word "evil", for a moment, in order to illustrate my point.

"Evil", John, would be the murder of 6 million Jews.
"Evil", John would be the 10 million Russians slaughtered by Stalin.

To be "evil", John, means to be profoundly malevolent and/or harmful.

"Evil", you ignorant whiner, does not mean "teh aPpLZors won't sell meh teh warez to run on my lame ass cheap box, so please, for the love of Pete, get a life and go troll somewhere else.

You are an embarrassment.

@PT

The extra cost comes from quality build, materials, design and style. To those who appreciate it, has value and it's worth paying extra for. Apple doesn't make bargains. Face reality, and move on. They seem to be doing quite well following their product designers and not listening to complaining consumers.

Dec 06, 08 - 08:45 pm Comment from: MacSmiley

Wow. When I recommended this article to MDN, I didn't expect to create such a ruckus!

@PT

The problem with your purchase is that, like most people today, you're looking only at the short-term money savings now, without considering the long-term expenses down the road.

Antivirus, antispyware, not to mention the fact that Mac hardware on average has a significantly longer useful lifetime than cheapo PC assembler products – these are all factors you neglected to consider in your artificially simplistic comparison.

This is the same short-term thinking which helped precipitate today's financial crisis. So, congratulations on saving money now, and good luck with all that extra money you'll have to spend down the road now.

You call Apple's Mac hardware "overpriced". On the contrary, I'd say that, in fact, PC assemblers have been drastically *underpricing* their products for a long time now.

Profit margins are so slim, these companies can barely survive. Which is why their quality is so low, their PCs come with all kinds of crapware preinstalled, and their customer support is a nightmare.

Whereas Apple charges a price for their products which guarantees that the company stays healthy, provides quality products, and will be able to provide good customer support. You really do get what you pay for.

And your knowledge of history is either biased or incorrect – the 1997 deal between Apple and Microsoft had more to do with Microsoft wanting to settle pending lawsuits. Allow me to suggest some remedial reading: "The 1997 agreement killed the ongoing lawsuits and conflict related to Microsoft's copyright violations, patent infringement, and stolen code.". (Yes, I know, it's on the Roughly Drafted site, but this particular article sticks to the historical facts.)

Dec 06, 08 - 09:46 pm Comment from: chaz

@ Gabriel,
Well said, but, forget that settle lawsuit BS, they could have dragged that out until Apple Folded if they had wanted to. On this point PT is absolutely correct. M$ was deathly afraid they would be faced with breaking up the company, and really being forced to give up the OS.

You won't see M$ saying so, because it would have been used against them in a court of law. Sorry, you can't always go by the Company's public relations sound clip.

Dec 06, 08 - 10:37 pm Comment from: PT

Actually I was talking about hardware...not software. As I was saying, where, other than the aluminium case, does a mac contain parts that aren't made in the same factory as those in dell's, sony's, HP's, etc? And what makes them more 'premium' than those same parts sent to HP, etc? Does a special QA from Apple guy sort the line and pick only the 'best'? Seems doubtful.

The point I am trying to make is that given a little recent success, such as with the iphone and the previous series of macbook and macbook pro computers, apple seems far more belligerent nowadays when it comes to dealing with them than it used to. They think they are dealing from a position of strength, which they are to some extent (only as much as we customers give them to be sure). But nowadays brand loyalty doesn't seem to be that great, coupled with the cloud computing paradigm, where the browser is king, not the OS (it's just the means to an end), I would suggest that apple is overstating is position and loyalty of its customers. Loyalty only lasts when the price is good and people have money. Watch that change when the US recession devours discretionary spending. $1600 for macbook for junior for college or $800 for a hp with same specs and bigger screen? Be a tough call wouldn't it?

No way would I pay what they are asking for the new mac book. Not for its specs- its way underdone for the price. Sure OSX is great...but the hardware premium is exploitative in my eyes, hence my choice not to pay it. A HP with linux makes a good compromise.

As for choice not to buy macs -> that wasn't mine. Even though I use a mac, and would have liked to have seen them adopted for the obvious benefits, there are things about OSX in the enterprise that somewhat preclude it as a choice. I could rationalize the choice to go with HP notebooks instead. Sad but true. Welcome to the economics of downturn....

"Equating a car engine to software is like comparing a banana to a Leer jet."

It wasn't me who started that analogy. I'll concede that the original poster both knew nothing about software licensing or how car engines are sold.

"anyone who thinks Apple needs to "stop being evil" and let people install and sell OS X on whatever they want should go to the grocery store, fill up a cart, and pay the clerk whatever the shopper thinks the groceries are worth."

Apple sells a full version of the OS at retail, they charge $129. It's like buying a can of Heinz beans, paying the retail price for the beans and finding the can says you can only cook it on a Heinz stove which is just like every other stove but has a Heinz label on it.

Any court asked to rule on the narrow issue of whether OS X should be treated like any other consumer product or OS sold at retail will rule in favor of the consumer: You pay the price the vendor asks, you get to do what you like with the product.

Dec 07, 08 - 12:02 am Comment from: Predrag

Clearly not many here have the ability to grasp the complete situation.

First, retail price o OS X. The $129 price is an upgrade price. You cannot buy a Mac without an OS, then get the shrink-wrapped Leopard for $129 and install it on that system-less, virgin Mac. You can <b> Only install that retail version on a legitimate Mac. When you bought for that Mac, you paid for your hardware, as well as for your OS. What portion of that retail price was OS? I'll leave it to the readers here to figure that out or venture guesses. Needless to say, if we were to extract somehow the actual retail value of stand-alone Mac OS X, it would be well north of $200.

Second, licensing an OS (whether Mac OS X, iPhone OS X or any other OS running on Apple hardware) would be suicide. The only reason iPod and iPhone are so popular is the marriage of hardware, software and services. The entire iTunes ecosystem. And the same applies to Mac OS X and the hardware it's married to. Extracting any component out of that ecosystem and selling it separately would immediately shatter the entire foundation upon which Apple's brand image stands. As soon as first legitimate customers begin having problems with Mac OS X on no-name (or non-Apple) boxes, and Apple refuses (or fails) to provide support, the entire image of Apple as a company that sells product that work is gone forever.

And lastly, to comment on PT's rationale for declaring HP a winner in his company's contest; the contest was clearly rigged from the beginning, or at least Mac was forced to compete with an arm tied behind its back. It just makes no point to comparing computers without comparing everything. With Apple, you just cannot leave out software. That is precisely where Apple wins every time in ROI studies, time after time. A good Apple advocate (actually, an objective IT person who knows his stuff) could easily do a thorough comparison in which all expenses in the course of the expected lifetime of a computer are taken into account. As so many independent studies have shown before (even when Macs were much more expensive than comparable PCs), Apple would have easily won.

Nothing evil about protecting there property and copyrights. Apple makes computers already that work with its software. You want to use Apple's software, BUY A MAC!
Guarantied this company with that name will be slapped by Apple in no time, and rightfully so!

"First, retail price o OS X. The $129 price is an upgrade price."

No Predrag, that's what you fail to grasp. Read read the license agreement, it's a full version. If it was actuality an upgrade you might have a point. That fact that it's not just make you an idiot repeating something some other fanboy told you.

"What portion of that retail price was OS? "

$129 or less since that's the price of the full retail version.

"if we were to extract somehow the actual retail value of stand-alone Mac OS X, it would be well north of $200."

Why? Other OSes cost less than that, Apple uses a primarily open source OS underlying an Apple created GUI, so it's development costs are less than Microsoft's, much less since it doesn't need to develop the core OS.

Further your argument would seem to suggest that when you buy a Mac part of that cost goes towards providing you subsidized OS upgrades for life. Apple doesn't account for Mac sales that way.

". The only reason iPod and iPhone are so popular is the marriage of hardware, software and services. "

That argument is a joke, surely?

95% of iPods and iPhones are used as Windows peripherals, running iTunes on industry standard PC hardware, connecting to web and mail servers that for most people are almost certainly not running Mac OS X. What you seem to be showing is just how well Apple can make a product where the vast majority of users never use it with an Apple made PC.

You know, this sounds like spread the wealth. Tax the rich and give to the poor. Why do people think that everything should be free? (It is not; eventually someone pays; usually the consumer.)

Eventually we will have companies saying no to developing great Intellectual-property. Why would they? Consumers will pay for this crime against Intellectual-property. What does it say if you or your company designs and patents a product just to have it distorted and used against your will?

Dec 07, 08 - 01:17 pm Comment from: Forrest, Forrest Gump

To all the people here bashing Apple for protecting their interests:

So then, Apple is "evil" or "greedy" because they are looking for a healthy company? What do you think Apple, Inc. of?
They are a COMPANY with commercial purposes that look to make money.
Just because they found a way of doing that with price levels they think are ok, with the best operating system (and this is NOT just my opinion) out there it does not mean they have to change politics just because you THINK they are "evil" or "greedy" or whatever adjective you can use.
Facts are that their sales are growing, that they have lots of cash. So, as a company, I think they are doing very well.
By the way: Suppose Apple starts to lower the prices and squanders that twenty-something billoins and suddenly they disapear, are you going to applaud the act and enjoy it? Then, it means that you are jealousy of their success.
Apple contributes to capitalism by creating wealth. They are not going to DC begging for some rescue that, in a future, will be taxes you have to pay with the fairless tax of all: inflation.
By the way: Capitalism has proved to be the best (or at least, the less worst) of all the systems to erradicate poverty.
So: Stop complain and start to make money and contribute to your country in the process.

Shit happens, really!

Dec 07, 08 - 03:26 pm Comment from: Brulek

@ Forest Gump

I think the whole 'apple is greedy' idea or accusing somebody of thinking that way is a simplistic statement that really bears little weight. Since we have freedom to choose whether or not to pay apple's prices, their ability to be greedy rests on us somehow forgetting we have choice. We do have choice (albeit a poor one in the alternative), so therefore apple cannot be greedy unless we let them. And it seesm some people aren't willing to let them.

Apple is trying to remain a premium brand (like mercedes perhaps, even though many taxi in europe are mercedes benz's) and difference itself accordngly so it can charge premium prices, rather than trying to be the price leader. And vertically integrating its product line is right out of Michael Porter's 'Competitve Strategy' play book. Indeed seems somebody at apple has read a few of the right books. However, the moment you take your customer for granted, is the moment you start to die. Apple would do well to remember that. There is a concept called 'the moment': the moment when you annoy a customer enough so you lose them as a customer forever. This must be avoided for obvious reasons. Apple would do well to remember the last time this happened, and what it did to the company, as stated previously.

Apple needs to lighten up a bit - they become more draconian by the day.

Do we expect Sony to support their Playstation OS on non-Sony hardware?

Do we expect RIM to support their Blackberry OS on non-RIM smartphones?

Why, then, do [people] continue to expect Apple to support Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware?

I don't believe anyone here has successfully provided a counter-argument to this.

Dec 07, 08 - 08:34 pm Comment from: Brulek

@No answers for this yet?

those devices represent a near singular usage paradigm of computing whereas a computer by itself (as is) represents almost inifinte potential applicability. Perhaps this is why people wish this? or so maybe more people will see how good osx is and want to buy a genuine apple. personally licensing one version ago (tiger) to somebody like dell with fairly strict hardware spcifications and no implied warranty from apple mightn't be too bad. Apple isn't sacrosanct. and i was a shareholder increased revenue and user growth always looks nice and raises share value

This gets tiring but...

If Apple's hardware is overpriced, the remedy is to not buy it.

btw ALL things are worth, economically, what people will pay for them. NOT what they cost the manufacturer to build them.

For example, I try very hard to sell my services for more than the cost of the food I eat and the cheapest shelter I can buy.

=====

You have a right to not buy Apple products. You don't have a right to them at whatever price you think is fair. And if you're not happy with Windows or Linux, well then just maybe you're saying that Apple IS worth the extra money.

====

If these guys ever get traction, all that will happen is that Apple will be forced to do the annoying things MS does in order to prevent unauthorized use of the OS. Believe me that will NOT be a good thing.

But Apple will do those things rather than just license because Apple is a for profit entity and providing value to those willing to pay for it is a much better business than selling cheap in volume.

=====

Now would all you whiners puh-lease just go buy a Dell.

Dec 07, 08 - 09:24 pm Comment from: January 24, 1984

I'd love to load OS X into a jacked up Pinto. Can you imagine the humor?

If Apple made a broader range of Mac hardware to meet the differing needs of an expanding customer base - this argument would not be taking place.

Up until very recently I could buy a mid-range MacBook with a matte screen and firewire. Not any more - they've withdrawn it from the market.

Up until recently, I could buy a midrange Mac desktop and have the matte screen essential for my work. Not any more - Apple has withdrawn it from the market. So, I would like to buy a mid-range Mac box instead and choose my own quality screen to hook it up to... not possible - Apple long since withdrew any such box from the market. Probably the only PC maker who don't offer its customers this simple option.

Is it any wonder Apple's customers - many of them loyal through thick and thin - are now beginning to feel the company has lost interest in providing the range and quality of hardware they once built their name on? It doesn't surprise me one bit that there is a growing list of those calling for Apple to be forced (if necessary) to allow other companies to build the range of hardware - as 'open PCs' - Apple itself refuses to provide as a commitment to its customers - customers with thousands of dollars invested in Mac software.

After years as a staunch Mac supporter, I now have no choice but to add myself to that list... and I hope Psystar and this company succeed in opening the gates to a wide range of quality third-party boxes.

Dec 07, 08 - 09:44 pm Comment from: Forrest, Forrest Gump

@Burlek:

Then, you think Apple is annoing a lot of clients?
Why, then, sales are rising 30% YOY?
Do you really think that there are a lot of annoing clients out there just because those who want to lower the prices are the ones that whine?

By the other hand, there is an expression in my ranch that say: "Becerro que no llora, no mama" (Calf that don't weep, won't nurse). It means that there will always be people that weep at anything.

Spawn strategy.

It is possible someone is trying to kill Apple by funding numerous such el-cheapo startups. Apple would have to sue each individually.

Dec 07, 08 - 11:41 pm Comment from: MacSmiley

Engadget has published benchmarks for the Psystar system, by the way:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/30/psystar-open-computer-notes-benchmarks-and-video/

I'm stickin' with Apple on this one.

Dec 08, 08 - 01:46 am Comment from: Predrag

Response to the anonymous poster (labelled as @Predrag):

No Predrag, that's what you fail to grasp. Read read the license agreement, it's a full version. If it was actuality an upgrade you might have a point. That fact that it's not just make you an idiot repeating something some other fanboy told you.

There are people here who just blurt out something they (probably) know is not true, especially if someone else actually stated something they don't like, but which is in fact correct. They hope others won't check. So, here from the 'Leopard' license agreement:

Updates: If an Apple Software update completely replaces (full install) a previously licensed version of the Apple Software, you may not use both versions of the Apple
Software at the same time nor may you transfer them separately.


In other words, when you buy a retail copy of Mac OS X (currently Leopard), you are getting an update. That is exactly what you paid for. You are not allowed to install that update separately from the original OS that came with your Mac. You cannot use them independently.

How hard is this to understand, anonymous poster?

Dec 08, 08 - 03:59 am Comment from: PT

@ Forest gump

No, I'm not suggesting apple is annoying a lot of its customers. I'm saying that apple needs to avoid doing this with their hubris that tends, from past experience, to rise almost exponentially with their success.

Trying dealing with them on an enterprise level nowadays...it's like dealing with a new car salesman with a car that sells itself: no give, no negotiating, no trade, no nothing. It's absolutely their way or the highway. And this all gets filed away in the customer's mind...and instead of selling us 400 computers...they sold us nothing but a bad taste in the mouth. Like I said, this gets remembered and filed away. And it starts to add up.

Clearly retail OSX boxes are updates, because what else would they be installed on (legally) other than a Mac with an older version of OSX on it? Even the previous legal clones from a decade or so ago won't run OSX, but regardless, they also originally came with Mac OS System 7-8 on them. There is no intent to sell OSX through the retail channel as an original install on a non-Mac machine - period. Hacking a PC to run OSX can be done on a personal basis of course, but you can't offer to sell them to the public.

Now... <~sarcasm~>.... (disclaimer for idiots)
On the car front: I want the BMW driving experience and feel at a Yugo price - provided by some third party. I'm entitled, and BMW is greedy for not giving it to me without making me buy one of their cars.

Any fool who buys one of these deserves what they get.

"If Apple's hardware is overpriced, the remedy is to not buy it."

Absolutely agree. the remedy is to buy the full retail Mac OS X license for $129 and put it on your choice of cheaper hardware.

"Updates: If an Apple Software update completely replaces"

Struggling with what the word IF means are you? What would that sentence restrict you from doing if the software did not replace an existing version?

The mere fact that sentence is there indicates yet again that you can use it either to replace another version or as a full version in it's own right.

Dec 09, 08 - 04:22 pm Comment from: Willie G

@ Agree...

"Absolutely agree. the remedy is to buy the full retail Mac OS X license for $129 and put it on your choice of cheaper hardware."

And doing so will lead to their no longer being an OSX, as Apple will be crippled. Apple is a HARDWARE company that uses software to drive sales. I can't believe there are still people as thick as you who cannot grasp this most simple of concepts.


"The mere fact that sentence is there indicates yet again that you can use it either to replace another version or as a full version in it's own right."

The operative word there being OR.

I have a suggestion for you:

http://www.readingcomprehensionconnection.com/