The content companies had giant advertising campaigns trying to brand this as "theft" or "stealing". Of course, when they sued someone they used the proper term: "IP violation"
I'm not arguing if it's acceptable or not, but it's not the same as theft which leaves the owner without the item.
Look at it this way if I steal your trade secrets and clone your product after you spent R&D money on it I’ve essentially “stolen” both a part of your revenue and your investment.
Music, film and games cost money to develop and produce pirating them does incur a financial penalty and that does fall under the common definition of theft.
However as far as Apple goes if you buy a copy of their OS you can easily consider that acceptable since EULA restrictions on the usage can be ethically counter argued.
Wouldn't leaving a bad review of a bad product be considered theft under this definition?
Of course, just like with piracy, it would not provable that the revenue was guaranteed in the first place. But companies would absolutely try and litigate over it anyway.
I suppose this discussion is unrelated to this thread, though.
You can’t steal something from somebody if they still have it after the “theft” (the IP) or if they never had it in the first place (the revenue).
And in any case you are arguing about semantics, "theft" is also technically not a singular legal definition but an amalgamation of different civil and criminal legal statues.
In most jurisdictions intangible property also does fall under the broader definition of theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
A key term is intent to deprive, hence most people nicking a car will be done for taking without consent - no need to prove an intent to permanently deprive.
Copyright infringement is a whole separate law and is clearly not theft as there's no intent to permanently deprive.
I really hope you're not right about this, but unfortunately it seems all too likely. Linux will finally win on the desktop not because it finally starts listening to potential users and making things better, but because everyone else just stops making desktops.
Of course those of us on this site are members of the Hacker Class. Putting our own house in order might involve writing code, but meaninful contributions can come in the form of bug reports or even just using software and occasionally writing something about how you use it.
Also, the font color on this blog is absolutely horrible.
Yeah, I've noticed more sites do this. Super annoying. I made this bookmark for those cases:
javascript:(()=>{document.querySelectorAll("p,div,article,section,ul,ol,li").forEach(x=>{x.style["color"]="black";});})();I don’t find the “theft” argument compelling, because Apple doesn’t even sell OSX anymore. They’re a hardware company.
You mean like, a PS/2 keyboard or what are you on about? Any bluetooth or usb keyboard works on any regular mac.
> - macOS gets more iOS-ified with each release and some people don’t like that
Again, what are you on about? A hackintosh is running a just as ios-ivied macOS as a regular mac.
I believe GP refers to the crapboards in the recent MacBook Pro lineup, which are amazingly bad. Also, IIRC Apple doesn't offer a real wired keyboard anymore.
>I look at it another way. Apple, as a company is failing to meet the needs of some of its users:
I don't see how the two perspectives are related, unless you think a company failing to meet your needs as a consumer is a valid reason to steal from said company.
In other words, there has to be some reason that they don't see it as stealing but do see it as a failure by Apple to meet the needs of it's consumers. That reason is the relationship between the two concepts and I don't understand what that relationship is.
I read their argument as "some people say it's immoral to run a hackintosh, but I think it's not immoral because Apple isn't providing their consumers with a valid alternative".
> Every Hackintosh continues to add momentum to that platform ecosystem, enriching it so that Apple can continue on more or less as they want.
I use Linux (and OpenBSD occasionally) these days, and I do so in part so that I can sometimes be the guy who sands off a rough corner or two. Even by using the platform and occasionally submitting bug reports, you’re enriching a platform that may be the last un-nerfed general purpose computing platform standing.
I don’t really care one way or the other about the stealing question, because this other argument against hackintoshes is more compelling to me.
Absolutely. Here, here.
I don't feel a moral obligation not to steal from Apple. I'm not sure I could steal (and use) an amount from them that would impact them at all. I mean even if I stole a classroom full of MacBook pro's in order to give free programming classes - it's not like it would affect Apple in any meaningful way.
But I don't quite get why anyone would go out of their way to get hw they'll never be able to run legally licensed os on. For fun and learning, sure. Turn your linux/bsd box into a hackintosh by dual booting. But you can never do any work on it without risk. So what's the point?
Sure you can "buy" a copy of os x - but you only get install media and a license to run on Apple hw.
> 2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. A. Preinstalled and Single-Copy Apple Software License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you obtained the Apple Software from the Mac App Store, through an automatic download or under a volume license, maintenance or other written agreement from Apple, you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time. For example, these single-copy license terms apply to you if you obtained the Apple Software preinstalled on Apple-branded hardware.
(...)
> J. Other Use Restrictions. The grants set forth in this License do not permit you to, and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.
(...)
If you're not going to abide by the license, you're essentially running "pirated" software.
The license is strange - but it is what Apple is selling.
And AFAIK the latest release is a "free" (gratis) download anyway - so you can't even claim you've paid for it.
I mean sure, you can ignore the license. Maybe Apple won't sue, but they might revoke your developer access, I loud account etc.
[ed: anyway, the thread started with a claim about "moral" obligation, I'm just pointing out that Apple is refusing to give or sell a valid license, so you're in breach of the license. I don't see how it's legally very different from an illegal copy of Microsoft Windows).]
Even if a judge agreed with Apple's EULA (unlikely, and unlikely to be tested), that's not really enforceable in any practical sense unless you're selling computers with MacOS preinstalled. Then it's a matter of commercial licensing and distribution which they do have an interest in protecting.
Ever noticed how people tend to drive at a speed that seems safe given conditions? Respect for ethics is a virtue respect for the law for its own sake is a disease.
Not saying it’s bad or not. I despise EULAs. I think that’s what the parent means, though.
What risk is that?
These users would be paying them the say zero dollars right now either way but they would no longer be potential future customers.
What would they gain by this?
How does running the same software on a different machine do anything to address this?
Well, sure, but where's the victory in using something you don't like (the situation that peatmoss (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17709084) describes) for free? Sure, it's better than using something you don't like and paying for it, but (1) you're still investing time and effort, if not money, and (2) it seems better still just not to use the thing you don't like.
- You like Mac OS after modifying it to counter its Iosification but don't want to support a company that makes you jump to those hoops, or
- You actually like Mac OS but oppose Apple's tendency to restrict their user's freedom on principle.
Using a hackintosh just because you don't like Apple would be pointless, of course.
I look at it another way. Apple, as a company is failing to meet the needs of some of its users:
- You can’t get an upgradable pro machine
- you can’t get a good keyboard (for some definitions of good)
- macOS gets more iOS-ified with each release and some people don’t like that
Every Hackintosh continues to add momentum to that platform ecosystem, enriching it so that Apple can continue on more or less as they want.
I use Linux (and OpenBSD occasionally) these days, and I do so in part so that I can sometimes be the guy who sands off a rough corner or two. Even by using the platform and occasionally submitting bug reports, you’re enriching a platform that may be the last un-nerfed general purpose computing platform standing. If we lose general purpose computing to a world of app-store enabled iPad Pros and Windows Store-locked Surfaces, we will have lost something important I think.