After the following story was posted, Apple changed its license to allow Safari for Windows on Windows PCs. At least in part In using Apple Software Update to slip his Safari browser onto millions of Windows PCs, Steve Jobs didn't just undermine "the security of the whole Web". He's made a mockery of end user licensing …
This'll be the reality distortion field at full grunt no doubt.
Thanks for another kwality moment, Stevo
A guy came into the office the other day flashing his shiny new iPhone. The first thing I was unable to not say (followed by a string of others) was 'Hey Andy, how's the 3G on that thing?'
He wasn't impressed...
If you say "impossible"...
...it means you just aren't trying hard enough.
Come on, everybody, think positive thoughts! Together we can do it!
So, sticky label + marker pen = Valid Licence?
Wow. Are we reduced to bragging about 3G inadequacies in public now. 'My 3G is bigger than yours, snigger'. Ah for the innocent days when it was just about penis length.
Oh, and I'd be sad if Webster didn't chip in with something about the EVIL Apple empire now starting to INFECT other OSs.
Search & Destroy
Surely that's classed as malware then?
Re: "You can't enforce a term that's impossible."
Unless there's money to be made by a lawyer.
Then, "Impossible is Nothing!"
Um, not an 'impossibility issue'
Obviously not what was intended, but bootcamp, VM Fusion and Parallels would all allow me to comply with the requirement and run it on Apple badge hardware. This legal bod needs to think again perhaps?
More worrying for Apple users
Since you are only allowed to use it on One Apple labelled computer - does this mean if you have several Apple computers you can't use it on all at the same time (I know sounds impossible, but amazingly can be useful, especially with remote desktops)
Install Real Player instead
... and anyway you'd have to be totally deranged to install any Apple written software on a windows machine. Cross platform has never been their strong point, and don't even get me started on what several incarnations of i-tunes have done to my pc's, So much so I threw the bloody i-pods away and bought generic MP3's instead.
Mines the one with "Apples are not the only fruit" on the back ........
Wow, it doesn't have 3G!
My God, I've been using it for 4 months now, getting email and browsing the web, its been far more useable than any other mobile browser I have ever used. However, now I know it doesn't have 3G, it's going in the bin!
Well. Easy. Just put an Apple-sticker on the PC. Then - voila - it's Apple-labeled :)
has anyone bothered to read on ...
'This licence does not allow the Apple software to exist on more then one computer at a time '
Hey, when you're done surfing, toss me the browser please.
Unfortunately there is no pie-in-the-face Steve jobs icon ...
That's not impossible!
You just have to install Windows on your Intel Mac.
Then you'd be compliant. And totally stupid.
Some Apple Pimp "SPIN" - Try SEAKING it on Windows PCs!
When users have "auto update" software enabled (as most do so they won't be bothered), there is no such box to UNcheck if you don't want that notoriously Security Buggy Safari on your PC! The fact the Stevie Gods is blatantly trying to bundle Safari in with somewhat benign iTunes, is tantamount to SNEAKING it in!
Say, wasn't MS raked over the coals for doing similar things by the HYPOCRITE Apple Hack media and all the Apple FUDs??? Geez, all you guys would make great Dems and Liberals ... oh wait, according to recent research, Apple kooks are usually snooty hypocrite Liberals.
The big rumor is that a number of Windows users have already been soliciting ambulance chaser lawyers to sue Apple. a known Malware, if not historic buggy software provider. Now THAT will make my day! ... oh, YEAR!
Has a Golden Delicious sticker on it, does that comply with the EULA?
EULAs are already a mockery.
The fact that nobody has noticed this for months just goes to show how useless EULAs really are.
So how's the voice-recognition and voice dialing on your iPhone? Works great on my $50 LG phone!
Golden Delicious, Braeburn or Pink Lady?
Force-fed Safari!?!?!? Yikes!
Sorry, but my honest opinion of Safari on Mac is mostly unprintable, and I would seriously consider a Vista upgrade for anyone stupid enough to install it on Windows. Actually, that might not be a bad idea - Vista is bound to break it!
Maybe not "impossible" in the virtual world, but, like almost all EULAs, it is an "unreasonale " contract, which invalidates it regardless.
Made my day
As PH would say just made my day !
Gala or Pink Lady?
someone actually read the EULA?
When MS gave Apple money in the past, part of the agreement is that MS could ship IE on Mac but Apple could not do vice-versa. So they made Safari for Windows, but we really aren't supposed to have it? That way Apple covers their butt legally. Or how about, Apple is in with MS on this one, and the idea is to get Firefox customers (I mean users, sorry I was thinking Apple/MS) hooked on Safari (in hopes Firefox dies) only to dump it at a later date (several years down the road) because we aren't supposed to have it?
Whatever their reasoning, why put more on a PC than a typical user needs. Saddled with IE on their Windows PC, pushing yet another browser out there seems like a crappy thing to do. Now I will have to wait that much longer for Norton to scan the drive when I fix peoples PCs. Great, thanks Apple. Here is an idea, you sell us PC users OSX for Intel/AMD or get your I-tunes and other crap off Windows and Sync via Media Player (I am sick of waiting for Norton to scan it). Sell us OSX or get off Windows, I hope this comment starts a campaign.
P.S. I am sick of Windows but not ready to buy an overpriced Mac when I can build myself a killer PC out of brand name high quality parts. And don't mention Linux to me, people I know make lots of money and don't trust free/open things (they don't care about free, and they don't seem to like it, as they charge lots of $ for their services).
An exercise in hypocrisy
Not that I intend to install it anyway, I had quite enough of Safari on a real Mac, but how on earth are they going to check if everyone who clicks on "accept" is using Apple-labelled hardware? Sounds more like Microsoft's old stance on pirated copies of Windows: officially against it, but secretly pleased their damn OS got onto as many machines as possible, thereby building up a de facto monopoly.
I'm off to read Ubersoft.
How long has this taken to be found? Just goes to show how much notice people take of EULAs.
@ Shane Kent
And shut the door.
RE: Apple Lable
I prefer Granny Smiths, myself.
Brilliant move: instant market share!
Since any Windows PC with Safari installed will now be, by definition, an Apple-labelled machine, Apple will gain market share like crazy. And you thought this was tupid.
Down with the EULAs
I pray that one day, a company will put some really weird stuff in the EULA, such as:
"By reading this, you agree to pay the maker of this software 10 dollars a second
when using the software", And then try to enforce it.
I wonder how courts would manage to declare this EULA not legally binding, without having it apply to all others EULAs...
Is it just me?
I read that to be I can only install it on "one Apple labeled hardware device" - however I do not see any mention that I am restricted as to the number of non-Apple labeled devices, that is: PCs I can install it on...
My Dell is Apple Labeled, "The Label is from my Leopard disk" but it still can't run Safari as it has Ubuntu on it. Heh.
I don't blame you Windows users for being outraged one bit, Safari and iTunes on Windows is unnatural. The solution is obvious, get rid of Windows. Fixes the problem right up!
I like Safari and iTunes just fine where they belong, on my Mac.
quiet day for news, chaps?
this is a collossal 'non-story' - even by 'reg' standards:
1. someone at apple was lazy and cut'n'pasted some boilerplate text into the EULA for windoze safari
2. apple's software update offers to install safari for windoze for you, while updating itunes. If you dinnae want it, just untick the box.
hardly 'forbidding' windoze users from installing safari. nor, conversely 'forcing' them to install it.
nothing to see here. move along, please!
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if huge wads of legalise found in most EULAs these days, wasn't enforceable in the courts. It just seems like a means by which companies bully their end users into complying with whatever ludicrous usage rules they want, relying on nobody to go ahead with a test case.
Doesn't Bode Well for Vista Class Action Suit
Jonathan Kramer claims: "You can't enforce a term that's impossible."
So, how does this impact the punters that bought piece of crap (pc) systems marked "Vista Capable" and now involved in a class action suit against Microsoft?
Kramer's interpretation implies that Microsoft wins and punters are SOL.
The wording clearly states that the limit applies only to Apple computers
...so you can with a clear conscience install the software on all mainframes, Dells and homebrew computers you want.
@Doesn't Bode Well for Vista Class Action Suit
Wait til they start using the Chewbecca defense on each other. Then it becomes a three ring circus.
Ooh better deinstall Safari then
Don't want to be sued by Apple.
Firefox seems like the only safe choice.
Laws and EULA's
All laws are toss.
People sitting around writing "thou shalt not" on bits of paper and then waving them around like they were stone tablets from on high.
When I bought my Mac Mini, it came with several Apple labels in the box, in the form of pretty stickers, I happened to stick one on my Windows box, so I'm covered anyway :).
Doesn't this remind you ...
Apple == A poor version of Microsoft
Same tactics. Next I'll install a program that uses the Java runtime and find a copy of Linux waiting to be installed on auto-update.
..but, if you stick your own apple label on a beige box are you not techincally committing an offence to defraud or produce counterfeit goods or some other form of techincal deception?
maybe apple are going to start selling there own officially licenced apple case badges (say $40 - that seems an appropriately inflated jiz for an apple fan boi to swallow) thereby makn you complaint with the EULA
That has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
Just 'cos one contract says something stupid, it doesn't automatically invalidate every other one in the world. EULA is an acronym - "End User License Agreement", nowhere does this imply that any one EULA is in any way connected with any other. The validity, or not, of one such, in no way impacts the validity of any other such. The only mystery here is why on earth you would even begin to think so?
Put it this way. If some jerk also using the handle "ratfox" ended up being convicted as a kiddie-fiddler, would you expect to go to jail by association?
re: quiet day for news, chaps?
>> this is a collossal 'non-story' - even by 'reg' standards:
I see you're one of these apple fanboys who wont hear a word said against his beloved jobs, but I'll bite.
It's not a non-story, its quite interesting. Most people find EULA morally questionable, especially when they consist of 10 pages of legal speak. How can anyone not trained to read these things seriously be bound by them?
>> 1. someone at apple was lazy and cut'n'pasted some boilerplate text into the EULA for windoze safari
It's interesting that a company like apple is essentially treating the EULA with the same kind of contempt as the end users. If a company with massive financial reserves and dedicated legal teams cant get it right why should the end user?
>> 2. apple's software update offers to install safari for windoze for you, while updating itunes. If you dinnae want it, just untick the box.
I got rid of quicktime when apple started forcing me to download and install itunes every time there was a quicktime update, so I shouldn't really comment, but i suspect this is more of an issue of default options and misrepresentation. It really isn't a security update.
>> hardly 'forbidding' windoze users from installing safari. nor, conversely 'forcing' them to install it.
No, they are deliberately making things complicated so that they can claim they have X million installs of their web browser. The majority of installs will never be used because most people simply have no idea what they have installed, "it was a security update so I hit yes".
Heres a little hint, spelling Windows with a 'z' makes you look like you have the mental age of a 12 year old. Apologies to any 12 year olds reading...
RE: Shane Kent
"....Or how about, Apple is in with MS on this one, and the idea is to get Firefox customers (I mean users, sorry I was thinking Apple/MS) hooked on Safari (in hopes Firefox dies)...."
You obviously haven't used Safari. Believe me, the 'Fox is safe!
Find someone who has two Apples with Safari on both, get them to give you the Apple label from one of them, stick said label on your PC, and you are both in the clear.
Or buy a Beatles album and cut and paste the Apple logo...
Why on earth does anyone with a PC need any of Jobs' rotten apples spoiling their box.
iTunes - who needs it ? Same muppets who were fleeced for an iPhone.
Qtime - good grief need it as much as realplayer !
Safari - it's a hippopotamus in a zoo, give me Konqueror or FF3B4 any day.
I can't remember which piece of software it was, but I do remember actually scanning a EULA when installing something before. It basically started normally then part-way through the legalese it said something along the lines of "ahh no-one ever reads these things anyway" and started talking about a load of random crap.
Anyway, as TeeCee says, just because one EULA is declared invalid wouldn't affect any others.
This is fairly typical for software with restrictive licences.
Restrictive software licences are based around the idea that in order to use a piece of software, you have to make a copy of it in the computer's memory -- and software is subject to copyright, meaning that you would require special permission from the copyright holder to make that copy (and therefore use the software).
However, there's just one tiny flaw in this plan. It's bollocks.
If you have acquired the software legitimately, as a consumer, then you already have a right -- which is afforded under the Law of the Land, and therefore sacrosanct -- to use it for its rightful purpose. And if, in the course of using a piece for its rightful purpose, you happen to have to make a copy, then making that copy is Fair Dealing and so would not infringe copyright.