Mac "Big Iron" rumors

[Farmer]

you really have no options other than to migrate everything to another platform.

That's not a monopoly.  That's like saying if you want a Ford with features X but Ford doesn't make a model with feature X so you have to move to a Toyota which does have feature X and calling that a monopoly by Ford.

[kencameron]

On that basis, if you consider business management as an exercise in risk management (and you should) then risking the potential impact on your reputation, (because let's be honest, Apple isn't going to sue you), due to someone pointing out that you're happy to breach an agreement, isn't worth it.  

Well - you might not think so, but that is based on assumptions about the impact on someone's reputation of it being public knowledge that they use a Hackintosh. In the risk management context to express the issue as  "... happy to breach an agreement" assumes that your particular take on the issues involved is universal, which it clearly isn't. My own assumption is that a minority of people, who share your views of the ethical and legal issues, would reach adverse conclusions, that another minority would consider anyone using a Hackintosh to be a technological wizard and/or a rebel against the machine and actively choose to use their services for those reasons, and that most clients wouldn't care one way or the other. Risk management surely depends on individual values and circumstances, and I suspect what you are doing is reformulating an ethical judgement (which you have strongly defended on its own terms) in "risk management" language to make it seem like good business, and therefore a good thing.

(On reconsideration, I would say "some people" rather than "a minority of people". I really have no idea about the numbers)

[dturina]

That's not a monopoly. 

Yes it is, and your car analogy is wrong, because migrating a business from one OS to another is not like migrating from Ford to Toyota, it's like migrating from air transportation to railroad or road transportation. The systems basically do the same thing but in a different way, and are really not interchangable. If you have dozens of unix shell scripts you cannot really migrate to Windows easily, you need to have another unix, and if you want to run Adobe software on a unix desktop you have only OS X. The fact that people choose to make a hackintosh speaks volumes - they *need* OS X, and Apple is blackmailing them into a very narrow set of hardware options that allow them to run it. Honestly, if there's someone who would be in legal trouble over Apple's EULA, it's Apple, and my recommendation to them would be to change the wording.

Of course, long term solution would be a distribution of Linux that is made properly and that runs Adobe. That could be made to run on both Apple and non-Apple hardware and would make the OS X problem irrelevant.

Unfortunately, that could be expected to happen only if Google decides to rework linux desktop from scratch, and that's speaking from five years of experience continously using Ubuntu on my primary desktop machine. The problem of Linux is that development is motivated by ego and not money, and the last 5% of development provides the smallest amount of ego stimulation and greatest amount of tedious, hard work, and never seems to get done if you don't actually pay someone to iron out the wrinkles.

So the biggest problems with linux are 1) that it doesn't run Adobe software and 2) that it is not designed from bottom up by someone with a strong financial incentive to do it properly. But honestly, if it ran Adobe now, as it is, I could probably live with its warts just fine.

[Craig Lamson]

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

I would be shocked if every business in the world has not breached some clause or another in some contract somewhere.  That is a fact of business life. If you have never, ever done so in your life, well , welcome to sainthood.

I've been a photographer for over 30 years.  A fact of life for commercial photographers is making things work. As such we tweek, modify, hack, adjust and generally  McGyver our way along.  Its how business gets done.  Heck on this forum alone there lengthy threads about 'hacking' GH2's for better video performance. 

Have I damaged Apple?  I paid retail for the software.  I did not deny them an equipment sale ( I could have easily installed the software on a Mac from the secondary market), I did not give the software to others or install it on multiple machines(even though Apple allows it) nor have i asked nor will I ask for technical support. 

Do I support Apple by actually purchasing their computers and other products?  Yes.  In fact I owned two Macs prior to seeing if it would run on a generic windows box.

When I license my products to my customers it is a true 'meeting of the minds'.  Each side gets to voice an opinion about the terms.  That does not happen with a shrink wrap EULA, and that's where any analogy with photo licensing falls apart.

Will people break my licensing terms for my images?  Of course, that's nature.  Its what you decide to do about it that matters.  I learned an importantly business lesson many years ago when a client gave one of my images to a supplier to use in a trade show booth.  Now I grant unlimited first party use for my images because that is what the market demands and the images have a very limited lifespan.  I'm quite agreeable.  But when I made a stink over a few hundred dollars I ended up losing the client and many many thousands in repeat business.

Would I be upset and take a different tack if someone were selling one of my images on the open market without my permission?  That's a different story.

Its all about degrees.  Clearly your standards are different than mine.

[mac_paolo]

(Please forgive my english)

I read a lot of amusing posts here.
People trying to discuss over the meaning of words such as "illegal" or "ethic" to justify the break of an agreement. EULA for the friends.
People arguing that Apple deserves to be cheated as it's not supporting me anymore. What are we talking about?

We know what we are buying now, and we chose what to pay for. End of the story.
I am relying on a macbook pro without knowing for how many years will spare parts be kept for assistance.
I am relying on Apple phone, tablet and OS without knowing anything about their future.
I am relying on an Adobe software to manage my whole photo catalog without knowing absolutely nothing about future releases.

Fast forward to year 2020. Adobe will cease to support Lightroom. Will I sue them? Not at all! I bet on their platform. I won for ten years and lost the war, so what? I'll try to switch over a competitor while keeping the expense as low as possible.
Why should someone claim anything from Apple if they would decide to drop the Mac Pro line? I mean... we decided to get a Mac, we decided to buy softwares which run on a Mac, we even built Applescript or coded objective-c apps that run on Macs.
Nobody ever forced us to do that. The same is for Microsoft counterpart.

Choosing the right party is a mix of luck and knowledge. No manufacturer / software house is fireproof, nor their products. We pay for what we buy today, unless the contracts explicitly give us assurance for the future.

OS X is part of the Mac ecosystem. We may agree or not, but it's part of the EULA. It's cheap because it's meant to run of Apple computers only. Microsoft decided for a different path. Why would ever someone try to mix and match the two? Apple is telling us: my OS is cheap and so will be the upgrades if you stick with my machines (which are the ones and only to be certified).
Microsoft is telling us: we sell our OS for a higher price but you'll be free to remove from one machine and install on another. We don't build, nor care on, the machine you're going to use.

The Hackintosh philosophy is to want to have one's cake and eat it. I'm really sad for any Mac Pro user and I'd be mad as well with Apple, but it's not a valid reason to break the EULA, nor it will ever be. Owning an "original copy" of OS X won't ever allow you to do that.

A smart Pro is the one who plan the switch in advance and make any choice to reduce the impact, just in case the bad lack happens.
Anything else is not Apple's/Adobe's/Microsoft's fault, IMHO.

[deejjjaaaa]

People trying to discuss over the meaning of words such as "illegal" or "ethic" to justify the break of an agreement.

well... consider the issue of illegal aliens (USA)... they are illegal but for various political, etc reasons the law(s) is(are) not enforced and that comes from the very top also...

[Farmer]

It boils down to this.  Some of us believe you shouldn't violate that agreement and others feel it's OK.  Clearly, the two are not going to meet or move and further input from me isn't going to add anything, so I'll bow out and just agree to disagree.

[dturina]

It boils down to this.  Some of us believe you shouldn't violate that agreement and others feel it's OK.  Clearly, the two are not going to meet or move and further input from me isn't going to add anything, so I'll bow out and just agree to disagree.

History of mankind consists of re-evaluations of agreements of all kinds. Manufacturers can put many things in their EULA, but they have been known to rescind once the customers made enough noise about it. So, arguing about it is very useful.

[jonathan.lipkin]

Violating an EULA isn't illegal, as far as I know. It violates no laws, only a contract (License Agreement). To that end, the state won't come after you in criminal court but presumably Apple could bring a suit in civil court. I'm not a lawyer, just my guess.

[Steve Weldon]

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

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

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

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

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

1.  Either was Microsoft corning a PC market, they were restricting the growth of private vendors on their specific platform.  The anti-trust rulings are standard case law exercises in MBA courses and are interesting enough even for private individuals to read.

2.  Well.. if you simplify something too much you risk creating an environment where discussion of any type is discouraged.  Discourage discussion and you discourage growth and innovation.  For all we know Apple is about to do something smart and bring "OSx For PC's Version 1" to market.. that would never happen without these types of discussions.

3.  I'm don't think most people really understand risk management as it relates to actually running a business and the growth of that business.   With that considered, most would be shocked to learn that Apple (and Microsoft) have broken more EULA's, copyrights, patents, and contracts than we could hope to break in 100 lifetimes as small business owners.  They don't choose to do or not do something based on ethics or right/wrong.. they do it based on their chances of getting away with it for an anticipated period of time during which they hope to achieve benefits such as actual profit, market share, name recognition, and more.   

Okay, I'll be honest.. seems no one else is going to say it.  Apple and Microsoft are the financial pirates of modern times who spend more time in courtrooms than the boardrooms.  They've perfected the fine art of 'skinning' the last layer of profit.  They're also perfected brand loyalty (brainwashing) to the point where the customers they rip off, actually defend their own antics as a side benefit.

Ethics are pie in the sky nice.. but most have an ideal notion of what ethics are really about gleaned from Sesame Street and/or Mr. Rogers neighborhood.  I suspect most business professors keep a defib hidden out of sight during their ethics lectures lest someone goes into cardiac arrest after learning the nice guy driving the ice cream truck was actually harvesting body parts from living recipients..   Maybe I'm over doing it a bit.. but probably not.  Ask anyone who's taken an actual ethics class.

4.  I think we all try to do that at a base level, but as consumers we have a responsibility to ourselves and our chosen brands to provide more feedback.

5.  Thanks.  Surprisingly it's much the same as when I left it last year..    As soon as my internal clock catches up with my stomach I'll get to work..