I have four computers in my house all running Windows XP. Three of them run fully registered and updated XP Home software. The other runs on a copy of XP Pro Corporate Edition. It has never been updated as it is effectively a cracked copy. Have never had any problems, virus’s, trojans or anything so it makes me wonder about the updates. Microsoft has tried numerous times to put these cracked copies out of business with their updates just like Apple. However the updates Microsoft used just tell the user that their software was unregistered and an illegal copy. It prevents the user from “benefiting” from any other updates but does not prevent them from using the machine. Apple did the exact opposite and turned their products into crap. That is where the similarity ends.

When you live with their restrictions you can come here and tell us to do the same. Until then STFU hypocrite!

What “riled” me about your article (btw, apparently it’s reasonable for you to publish rants about a topic, but someone replying with a different opinion is “riled” instead of engaging in a debate) was it’s lack of scope or reference. A few examples?

“Apple has started to hate its customers”. It’s a pretty strong statement (unless it was also meant to be “amusing”). What are you basing this on? Not the millions of reasonably to fervently happy owners of Apple products. (Yes, there are definitely unhappy owners as well. Sell millions of anything and a percentage of folks will be unhappy.) No, you’re referring to your argument about choice. The gist I get of your view is that all corporations are supposed to create a product, then make it completely open, usable with or in any other context conceivable and withholding any future rights it thinks it might have. This sounds reasonable to you? While a company creating a product and a series of exclusive services that it and partners provide and you are under no obligation whatsoever to purchase is unreaosnable? Again, you don’t give an argument w-h-y it’s wrong, just that you think it is.

Some other quick points: What they are doing is illegal (sorry, “possibly” so). Well, how so? That Apple makes tons of money from the iTunes store. Where are the stats, instead of just your guess that they do? And while we’re there, where is the response to Apple’s stubbornness to raise fees at the store? What about copyright and artist’s rights when you are discussing DRM? Or that DRM has much more to do with copyright holders (ie. the record companies) than it does Apple. What about the fact that users voluntarily signed an EULA when they bought their iphones? That has no bearing on Apple’s decision to disable hacked phones? I could easily go on if you like.

I’m not that concerned whether you give my resposnses the time of day or not. You keep responding so there must be something there. But instead of implying my opinions don’t have merit, if you choose to respond, then do me a favor and back up your arguments instead of just giving loose opinions.

My article clearly has you riled. I’m not calling for Apple to be prosecuted (though I gather they probably will be), I’m calling on people to boycott them. And while we may disagree on much, you make several points in support of that aim.

And yeah, let’s get riled over anti-choice bundling, and all that other stuff. It’s my considered belief that business, being primarily about profit, is inherently anti-people, and the bigger the business the more overt this becomes.

One of your complaints is you don’t like iTunes and the new iPods are “crippled” to not work with other software. For most people that would equate to “well, guess it’s not for me”, and not “Apple is evil, hates it’s customers, and is conniving to squeeze every last drop of profit while quashing the rights of citizens everywhere”. Another possibility? You (nor I) have any idea what the licencing agreements are between Apple and the record companies, but what we do know from the news is that said record companies have been pushing extremely hard for Apple to toughen up it’s DRM. We also know that Apple is fighting to keep all tracks at .99, while the RC’s are pushing to raise them for popular tracks. Doesn’t sound to me like squeezing every drop of profit (that’s me defending Apple now). If something is to blame on this topic, then look towards the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The same logic can be put towards your iPhone brick argument. “Apple’s decision to trash their customers’ devices in punishment for having tried to improve their usability - there really is no other sane way to see it”. So, it’s insane that Apple and AT&T expected users to follow the end user agreement they signed? And in what way is hacking the iPhone improving it’s usability? Broadening, maybe, but the phone works just fine on AT&T. And that’s not just semantics. The implication that there is something wrong with the product and services because you don’t like them and that they seem to limit your view of free choice, seems to be questionably sane. Following your logic, we should be enraged that cable companies bundle options into packages removing our ability to choose, we should “break” developers that build condo complexes where you can’t paint the exterior of your unit whatever color you want, and so on. But that stuff isn’t wrong or evil. It’s the product those corps chose to sell. Yet again, choose not to purchase the product (which you said you would do with the iPod, good choice), get organized and let them know you don’t like their practices, or subvert their limitations and accept the responsibilities for doing so.

You are a culture/tech columnist, shouldn’t we expect more from you than name slinging, ridiculous statements like “Apple’s choice not to licence their system to other hardware vendors, or to other music stores, is another attack on choice”, and little to no research to back up your article -”It is possible that none of this behaviour is actually illegal. Unlikely, but possible”. Or is that just putting unreasonable and questionable expectations on what you choose to say and write. The way, say, someone might put such expectations on the products a company chooses to put to market.

I know there’s nothing special or ‘evil’ about either Apple of Microsoft; they are companies trying to make money. Unfortunately that basic premise seems to lead inevitably to bad behaviour, perhaps not of the Hitler variety (that was, I admit, a cheap shot), but anti-people nonetheless. It is interesting how quick some people are to defend almost anything in the name of business as usual.

Of the 13 computers in my home, every single one is running either GNU/Linux, *BSD or Solaris.

Death to proprietary software. Thankyou.

I don’t even know why I go to P2Pnet anymore, it’s all just bias.

So you admit you’re a moron.

First off, I agree - AS I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST - if you don’t like what’s being offered, stay away. Good choice. If that happens on a large scale and sales fall, maybe Apple and all the other “evil” coprorations that are apparently stripping you of your “rights”, will change their tune and be more consumer friendly. Don’t hold your breath, but maybe.

In the mean time, get over yourself. Apple and all the other corporations have every right in the world to restrict their services. Find me a statute ANYWHERE that says they don’t. The sort of things that are illegal: aggressivley creating a monopoly in a given industry, price fixing, not delivering on contractual obligations. You mention legality, ok, what - precisely - is Apple doing that is illegal? Users purchased a phone, SIGNED A CONTRACT saying they would use (in the US) the AT&T network, and abide by the temrs of the End User Agreement. They aren’t creating a monopoly, you can choose to go with any phone from any carrier you like, including a different phone from AT&T. There’s no collaborative price fixing, obviously. And as far as I am aware, they are living up to the obligations of the contract (who knows, maybe there are individual cases of that not happening).

So, what does your argument come down to? You DON’T LIKE their practices. If we were talking blenders or toasters that had no after-sale services involving the company, I would concede. They shouldn’t be able to tell you where you could plug in, for instance. But we are discussing a product that requires after-sale services. Do you just not get that concept? You aren’t just “legally” paying for a piece of hardware. The user is buying a piece of hardware that REQUIRES them to interact with the company and they signed an agreement saying they would abide by the agreement’s rules. Your idea, that a corporation should manufacture a product like this and then say, “ok, knock yourself out, do whatever you want with it” does happen. You can buy unlocked phones all over the place. But, Apple didn’t. They teamed with AT&T to exclusively provide the iPhone and service plans to the US. In a few years when the initial hype dies down, maybe they will open up their licencing, who knows. This isn’t a moral issue. It’s a business.

Do yourself a favor and re-read my posts where I suggest that if you don’t like it 1/ stay the heck away (glad you agreed with me on this AFTER calling me a moron) 2/ get vocal, organize and take them on to change their position 3/ use other means to circumvent their practices, and take responsibility for following that route. Or, you could just respond with more “wah, wah, wah, Apple sucks, wah wah wah, corporations shouldn’t be allowed to make money, wah, wah, wah, the big bad companies are taking away my rights, wah, wah, wah, anybody who thinks different is a colossal moron”.

Apple made a profit on all the Iphones sold, they’re not subsidized like some hardware out there. There’s no excuse for this.

True Story:
I went to the Apple store when the Iphone first came out and they showed me a $600 unregistered phone. It could only dial 911. As much as the Zune sucks (It sucks big time!) at least it will play your music and movies even if you never buy a single song from the Zune music store. Can’t say that about the Iphone. The Iphone is an expensive worthless brick unless you pay MORE money because ALL its features are turned off.

You just watch, WHEN Microslop sells their crappy phone (you know they will) all the rabid Apple fanboys will come here and tell us how wonderful Apple is compared to Microsoft. They’re both evil.

Companies should NOT be allowed to restrict something you legally paid for, especially when they made a huge profit on each item sold.

I was considering a Intel Mac for my next computer NOT ANY MORE!!!!!!!! Steve Jobs is a Bill Gates wannabe and I’ll have nothing to do with his restricted crappy products unless they’re forced on me. I’ll use a home built Linux box. As imperfect as Linux is, it has no DRM or dumb restrictions on how I use MY hardware.

Companies should NOT be allowed to restrict something you legally paid for, especially when they made a huge profit on each item sold. (Yes I deliberately posted that three times.)

So I click over to his blog - http://thepeer.blogspot.com/ - to read this: “The 160GB iPod - My Music World in My Pocket”

Make your mind up.

http://uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-and-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

http://www.cnettv.com/9742-1_53-28784.html

That’s 30 seconds on Google. Who said any of this stuff was for beginners? The original post was about hacking iPhones. That’s not for beginners. As I mentioned in my previous post, if you decide you want to break user agreements, or even do something potentially illegal, you have the responsibility to educate yourself abouit it and not whine if something goes wrong or if the company tries to stop you. It was your decision to do this stuff.

I am sorry to break your bubble but what the author wrote is correct. In order to run OS X you must do so on Apple Hardware. I would love to run OS X on a different computer, but unfortunately Apple has included DRM in their hardware/software that makes this impossible. Part of configuring a computer include the externals as well as the internals.