3 ms·

I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have a case, but I think the approach you're suggesting is a bit dicey. If Apple were afraid of having cheap RAM used in thei

I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have a case, but I think the approach you're suggesting is a bit dicey. If Apple were afraid of having cheap RAM used in their systems, why would they allow end-user-upgradable RAM compatible with third-party standards in their own systems? Another possible line of attack is that the retail versions of OS X are only upgrade versions for systems that already have OS X, so they don't cover the real cost of the produce.

Retric 19y ago
I am not suggesting that they only use one line of attack. My point that even if the EULA is not valid and the right of first sale let's the company install OS X on custom systems Apple can still bring up other forms of "Harm" to stop them. As to the ram issue they could say the type of user who would upgrade RAM would link a string of crashes to the RAM they added vs. assuming OS X is just as crappy as Vista. However, a new user given a system with bad ram is more likely to blame the OS than the hardware. So even if it's ok for them to build systems for internal use they can't sell systems to the public and say it's running OS X. (And even if it's identical HW the apple support network is better able to handle issues which would otherwise harm the OS X brand etc etc)